MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116963310 · doi:10.1002/alz70861_109000

Discrepant tau‐PET signal between [ <sup>18</sup> F]FTP and [ <sup>18</sup> F]MK6240 in low tau individuals

2025· article· en· W7116963310 on OpenAlexaff
Cécile Tissot, Hsin‐Yeh Tsai, Renaud La Joie, Nesrine Rahmouni, Joseph Therriault, Stijn Servaes, Jenna Stevenson, Firoza Z Lussier, Arthur C. Macedo, 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
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSIGNAL (programming language)Maturity (psychological)BiomarkerNoise (video)Measure (data warehouse)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Tau‐PET imaging enables in vivo detection of tau pathology in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with early detection being critical for tracking disease progression. Here, we compare [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 in individuals with low tau burden. Method 450 individuals from the HEAD study (22 cognitively unimpaired (CU) young (CUY), 242 CU old and 186 cognitively impaired (CI)) underwent [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 tau‐PET and amyloid‐PET scans. Scans were processed using identical pipelines with inferior cerebellar gray matter as the reference region. Individuals were categorized as low tau if both [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 meta‐temporal SUVR were lower than 1.5. For comparison, [ 18 F]MK6240 and [ 18 F]FTP were transformed into one another using linear and non‐linear models; additionally, images were also z‐scored relative to the CUYs. Result Despite cognitive status and amyloid burden, several individuals showed elevated [ 18 F]FTP retention in temporal regions relative to [ 18 F]MK6240. As an example, Figure 1 shows [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 in 16 participants (4 per cognitive and amyloid status). Across most subjects with SUVRs<1.5, [ 18 F]FTP presented higher retention in meta‐temporal region as compared to [ 18 F]MK6240, though [ 18 F]MK6240 increased sharply above this threshold (Figure 2). In Figure 3, group‐average images and their transformed counterparts are shown for each group by amyloid and cognitive status, the subset of low‐tau participants in Aβ+ groups are also shown. In low tau groups, [ 18 F]FTP meta‐temporal retention is high in comparison to [ 18 F]MK6240. Additionally, z‐scored [ 18 F]FTP images show broader spread into temporal regions than [ 18 F]MK6240, reinforcing differences in retention. Conclusion [ 18 F]FTP shows meta‐temporal retention not seen with [ 18 F]MK6240 in low tau individuals. This discrepancy persists across transformed and z‐scored images, suggesting that there is a difference in early tracer retention between [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240. It is unclear if the early [ 18 F]FTP retention is related to early maturity levels of tau or off‐target signal. These findings have important implications for basic understanding of early tau retention, early diagnosis, and biomarker harmonization efforts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.293 · 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→