MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116902575 · doi:10.1002/alz70862_110071

Impact of sex, age and glymphatic clearance on meningeal tau PET signal

2025· article· en· W7116902575 on OpenAlexaff
Cécile Tissot, Han Feng, Ji Yeon Lee, Hsin‐Yeh Tsai, Nesrine Rahmouni, Joseph Therriault, Stijn Servaes, Jenna Stevenson, Firoza Z Lussier, Brian A. Gordon, Belén Pascual, Val J. Lowe, David Soleimani‐Meigooni, Hwamee Oh, William E. Klunk, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, William J. Jagust, Tharick A. Pascoal, Suzanne L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlymphatic systemSIGNAL (programming language)Cerebrospinal fluidFunction (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Variability in meningeal signal has been observed with various tau‐PET tracers. Differences have been observed in sex and age. Furthermore, the potential role of glymphatic clearance in this variability remains unclear. Here we compare meningeal signal of [ 18 F]MK6240 and [ 18 F]FTP tau‐PET tracers in cognitively unimpaired (CU) amyloid‐β‐ (Aβ‐) individuals, in relation to age, sex and glymphatic clearance. Methods 92 CU Aβ‐ (7 CU young [18‐35yo] and 85 CU old) underwent [ 18 F]MK6240 and [ 18 F]FTP tau‐PET scans, structural MRI, and resting‐state functional MRI (rsfMRI). In native space, we defined nine distinct levels representing meningeal regions, organized from those closest to the cortex (1) to those furthest away (9). Glymphatic clearance, measured as gBOLD/CSF coupling, was calculated for each participant; a lower value means a more efficient glymphatic clearance. Associations between meningeal tracer signal and factors such as sex, age, and glymphatic clearance were analyzed using t‐tests and linear regression models. Results All 9 meningeal regions were tested and rendered similar results; we will be showing those for meninges level 2. [ 18 F]MK6240 and [ 18 F]FTP meningeal signal significantly correlated with each other in both sexes (Figure 1). We observed higher [ 18 F]MK6240 meningeal signal in females compared to males while no difference was found for [ 18 F]FTP signal (Figure 2). In females, [ 18 F]MK6240 meningeal signal did not show a significant association with age, whereas in males, a significant relationship was observed. Both males and females exhibited lower [ 18 F]FTP meningeal signal with increasing age (Figure 3A). Additionally, glymphatic clearance was significantly associated with age for females with [ 18 F]MK6240. No significant associations were found in males with [ 18 F]MK6240 or in either sex for [ 18 F]FTP (Figure 3B). Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that meningeal signal of [ 18 F]MK6240 is significantly associated with glymphatic clearance in females, while in males, it is associated with age. In contrast, [ 18 F]FTP signal is primarily influenced by age in both sexes. These results highlight the distinct relationship between [ 18 F]MK6240 signal and glymphatic function in females, while age appears to play a significant role in both males and females for other tracer signal patterns.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus→French-language works237,207→