Harmonization of Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620 and RO948 with the Uniτ scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Precise cross-tracer harmonization of tau PET imaging is essential for comparing tau burden across different tracers and studies. Here, we evaluated the performance of the universal tau PET scale (Uniτ) in harmonizing Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620, and RO948 tau PET images into a universal scale. METHOD: We assessed 485 individuals across aging and AD spectrum scanned head-to-head with Flortaucipir and MK6240, and a subset of 90 individuals with additional PI2620 and RO948. We generated tau PET SUVRs using the inferior cerebellar gray matter as reference with a common 8mm FWHM. We estimated Uniτ parameters on a training set (n = 200) by fitting a smoothed hyperbolic tangent equation to the Meta-Temporal ROI anchored in the mean SUVR of young participants and the 90th percentile from cognitively impaired individuals. We compared tau positivity on the Uniτ scale with classifications from SUVRs (mean + 3 SD from Youngs). We applied the same equation to all brain voxels to generate Uniτ 3D images. Then, we extracted mean Uniτ values for key ROIs and correlated them with ROI-based Uniτ values to evaluate voxel-wise estimates. RESULT: Using tracer-specific parameters, Uniτ harmonized Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620, and RO948 to the same scale, aligning values near the identity line and confirming its applicability across tau PET tracers (Figure 1). For Flortaucipir, Uniτ tau positivity matched original SUVR classifications (ground truth), with only one mismatch for MK6240 (Figure 1). Applying the Uniτ transformation to all brain voxels effectively harmonized 3D images to a common scale, reducing visual variabilities (Figure 2). Furthermore, ROI-based estimates and those extracted from the 3D Uniτ images were identical (Figure 3). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that tau PET tracers can be harmonized to a common scale using a large head-to-head dataset. The Uniτ scale can harmonize entire 3D tau PET images, suggesting that there is no need to use pre-established ROIs, which would constrain the analysis to a few brain regions. Uniτ is freely accessible across platforms (www.unitau.app) for ROI and 3D tau PET harmonization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".