MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116935821 · doi:10.1002/alz70862_109849

Assessing Braak stage agreement between four Tau PET tracers

2025· article· en· W7116935821 on OpenAlexaff
Andréia Maria Camargos Rocha, Bruna Bellaver, Carolina Soares, Pamela C.L. Ferreira, Emma Patrice Ruppert, Marina Scop Madeiros, Guilherme Povala, Lívia Amaral, Guilherme Bauer‐Negrini, Firoza Z Lussier, Matheus Scarpatto Rodrigues, Rayan Mroué, Joseph C. Masdeu, Dana Tudorascu, David Soleimani‐Meigooni, Juan M. Fortea, Val J. Lowe, Hwamee Oh, Belén Pascual, Brian A. Gordon, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Suzanne L. Baker, Tharick A. Pascoal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)Positron emission tomographyMeasure (data warehouse)Automated method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Alzheimer's disease (AD) Braak staging is a key framework for classifying tau pathology progression in AD based on histopathological post-mortem brain examinations. However, adapting it to PET imaging can be challenging due to differences in tracer uptake patterns and binding properties, which affect sensitivity, specificity, and regional staging. This study compares Braak staging across four tau PET tracers: Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620, and RO948. METHODS: We assessed 90 participants across the AD spectrum (46 CU, 31 MCI, 13 dementia; mean age 66.1 ± 7.8) using Aβ PET and four tau PET tracers: (Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620, and RO948). Braak positivity was defined based on Aβ- CU individuals (mean +2.5 SD, SUVR). To evaluate systematic bias and agreement between tracers, we computed pairwise differences at corresponding Braak stage estimates and applied the Bland-Altman method to assess mean bias and limits of agreement. Additionally, Tau PET Braak region trajectories were modeled as functions of Aβ burden (Centiloid scale) using the Lowess method. RESULTS: Braak stage trajectories as a function of Aβ differ depending on the tracer and the sequential order of abnormality is highly variable. For instance, while for MK6240, RO948 and PI2620, Braak I is the first region to became abnormal, for Flortaucipir the earliest region to became abnormal is Braak IV (Figure 1). This variable pattern of abnormality impacts in the concordance of Braak staging between tracers with the highest Braak staging agreement resulting in concordance levels of approximately 70%. The highest levels of agreement between tracers usually happen at Braak 0 or Braak IV-V, with intermediate stages showing very low concordance (Figure 2). The Bland-Altman analysis identified wide limits of agreement, suggesting high variability and high tracer-specific differences (Figure 3). On the other hand, it also identified that mean differences between tracers were small, indicating minimal systematic bias. CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings reveal discrepancies in Braak staging when comparing Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620 and RO948. These findings suggest that while the tracers provide comparable stages on average, they may not be fully interchangeable in individual cases.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.312 · 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→