MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116868638 · doi:10.1002/alz70862_109722

External Validation of Joint Propagation Model‐Based Tau PET CenTauR units

2025· article· en· W7116868638 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Moscoso, Antoine Leuzy, Lars Lau Raket, Victor L. Villemagne, Gregory Klein, Matteo Tonietto, Emily Olafson, Suzanne L. Baker, Ziad S. Saad, Santiago Bullich, Brian J. Lopresti, Sandra Sanabria, Olivia Lutz, Mercè Boada, Tobey J. Betthauser, A. Charil, Emily C. Collins, Jessica Collins, Roger N. Gunn, Makoto Higuchi, Eric D. Hostetler, R. Matthew Hutchison, Leonardo Iaccarino, Philip S. Insel, Michael C. Irizarry, C. R. Jack, William J. Jagust, Keith A. Johnson, Sterling C. Johnson, Yashmin Karten, Marta Marquié, Sulantha Mathotaarachchi, Mark A. Mintun, Rik Ossenkoppele, Q. Huang, Xiaxie Mao, Johannes Gnörich, Ioannis Pappas, Ronald Petersen, Konstantinos Chiotis, Gil D. Rabinovici, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Christopher G Schwarz, Ruben Smith, Andrew Stephens, Alex Whittington, Maria Carrillo, Michael J. Pontecorvo, Samantha Budd Haeberlein, Billy Dunn, H. Kolb, Diane Stephenson, Nadine Tatton, M. Brendel, Fang Xie, Christopher C. Rowe, Oskar H. Hansson, Vincent Doré

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentaurJoint (building)ComparabilityRadiomicsSensor fusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The Joint Propagation Model (JPM)‐based CenTauR scale was recently introduced to harmonize tau‐PET quantification across different radiotracers. This study examined how CenTauR harmonization enhances the comparability of tau‐PET quantification across matched cohorts using different tracers. The evaluation focused on three key aspects: (1) comparing tau‐PET positivity rates as defined by CenTauR, (2) evaluating its diagnostic accuracy for symptomatic AD, and (3) analyzing longitudinal changes in tau‐PET rates over time. Method The JPM, developed by the CPAD‐led Tau PET Harmonization Working Group (Leuzy et al., Alzheimers Dement. 2024; Figure 1A), models relationships between anchor point subjects and head‐to‐head tau‐PET SUVR data onto the CenTauR scale, providing conversion equations for multiple tracers. JPM equations were applied to [¹⁸F]flortaucipir SUVR (Meta‐temporal ROI) data from 561 cognitively impaired participants in the ADNI and OASIS‐3 studies. Using ROC analysis, we determined the CenTauR cut‐off for positivity (T+) that maximized the Youden index for discriminating between FDA‐approved positive/negative visual reads. Three separate cohorts, scanned using [¹⁸F]flortaucipir (ADNI), [¹⁸F]MK‐6240 (CPAS), and [¹⁸F]RO‐948 (BioFINDER‐2), were matched 1:1 by age, MMSE, amyloid‐β, and clinical diagnosis. CenTauR‐based metrics were compared across these cohorts. Result A cut‐off of 18 CenTauRs was found to optimally classify [ 18 F]flortaucipir PET visual reads (Figure 1B). The matching procedure identified 1089 participants (363 per cohort). The frequency of T+ using the 18 CenTauRs cut‐off for the Meta‐Temporal ROI was highly comparable across tracers across groups, except for the Aβ‐positive cognitively unimpaired group, where variability was more pronounced due to a smaller sample size (Figure 2A). Similarly, tau‐PET discriminative accuracy for symptomatic AD vs controls remained similar across [ 18 F]flortaucipir and [ 18 F]MK‐6240 (Figure 2B). In a separate sample of 212 matched participants from ADNI ([¹⁸F]flortaucipir) and AIBL ([¹⁸F]MK‐6240) with baseline and 1‐year follow‐up tau‐PET scans, 1‐year change in CenTauRs was comparable (Figure 2C). An exploratory voxelwise transformation, utilizing the Meta‐Temporal conversion equation in a representative case scanned with both [¹⁸F]flortaucipir and [¹⁸F]MK‐6240, demonstrates the potential for voxelwise CenTauR harmonization (Figure 3). Conclusion These analyses suggest that CenTauR harmonization increases the comparability of tau‐PET data acquired with different tracers. Additional validation analyses with larger cohorts including other radiotracers ([¹⁸F]PI‐2620) are underway.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→