MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7118383900 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_104920

A pipeline for comparing and combining TSPO‐PET tracers in Alzheimer's disease

2025· article· en· W7118383900 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harry Crook, Nicolai Franzmeier, Nesrine Rahmouni, Johannes Gnörich, Alexandra T. Strauss, Sebastian N. Roemer‐Cassiano, Carla Palleis, P Simon Jones, Tim D. Fryer, Young T. Hong, Franklin I. Aigbirhio, Johannes Levin, Günter U Höglinger, James B. Rowe, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Matthias Brendel, Maura Malpetti

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositron emission tomographyPipeline (software)DiseaseQuantitative assessmentCluster analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Neuroinflammation is a key pathological driver of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). Positron emission tomography (PET) with tracers targeting the translocator protein (TSPO) enables the in vivo quantification of microglial activation. Currently, direct comparison between TSPO‐PET tracers in AD have not been performed. Here, we tested a pipeline to quantitatively compare different TSPO‐PET tracers in clinically‐matched cohorts of patients with AD across multi‐centre data. Method 32 people with AD and 15 controls underwent [ 11 C]PK11195‐PET at the University of Cambridge, 45 people with AD and 19 controls underwent [ 18 F]GE180‐PET at Ludwig‐Maximilians‐University of Munich, and 25 people with AD and 25 controls underwent [ 11 C]PBR28‐PET at McGill University. Participants across the centres were matched for age, sex, and clinical severity. Pre‐processing of scans was harmonised across centres, and regional SUVr of tracers were obtained using a shared reference region and atlas. Z‐scores of regional SUVr values for each participant were calculated based on centre‐specific controls. Dissimilarity and clustering analyses were performed to assess the effectiveness of the standardisation pipeline. Figure 1 outlines the methodology. Result Clustering analyses identified no tracer‐specific patterns in the distribution of z‐scores following standardisation. Across all tracers, regional z‐scores of the AD groups were significantly different between tracers in 7 of 41 brain regions, while no differences were found for controls (Figure 2). Full factorial analysis found a main effect of tracer; however, these were due to interaction effects with disease group, sex, age, and brain region and explained very little of the variance. Pattern similarity between representational similarity matrices found moderate correlations between the three tracers in patient and control groups. Conclusion These results suggest that our pipeline is effective at harmonising TSPO‐PET tracers and standardising the regional quantification of microglial activation in the context of different AD cohorts. Dissimilarity analyses identified small tracer‐specific effects, however. Ongoing work aims to optimize this pipeline in order to compare and combine TSPO‐PET tracers in other tauopathies (ie PSP) and to identify thresholds of “inflammation severity” related to clinical outcomes.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→