MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7119524057 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_106041

<i>In vivo</i> detectability of tau‐PET tracers in Alzheimer's disease

2025· article· en· W7119524057 on OpenAlexaff
Tissot Cecile, Nesrine Rahmouni, Hsin‐Yeh Tsai, Joseph Therriault, Arthur Macedo, Stijn Servaes, J. K. M. ller Stevenson, Firoza Z Lussier, Jacob Ziontz, Peiwei Liu, Lydia Trudel, Brian A. Gordon, Belen Pascual, Val J. Lowe, David Soleimani‐Meigooni, Hwamee Oh, William E Klunk, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, William J. Jagust, Suzanne L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard deviationNoise (video)DiseaseReference valuesRange (aeronautics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Tau‐PET tracers are essential for visualizing pathology in Alzheimer's (AD). High detectability to tau is crucial for early detection and monitoring of tau deposition. This study compares the noise to dynamic range ratio (NRR) of [ 18 F]FTP, [ 18 F]MK6240, [ 18 F]PI2620, and [ 18 F]RO948, cross‐sectionally and longitudinally. Methods 460 individuals from the HEAD study (23 cognitively unimpaired (CU) young, 249 CU old and 188 cognitively impaired) underwent [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 tau‐PET scans; 94 additionally received [ 18 F]PI2620 and [ 18 F]RO948. A subset of 28 individuals (15 CU and 13 CI) underwent [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 follow‐up scans (1.5 ± 0.1 years later). Annual change was measured as [(followup‐baseline)/time between scans]. Noise was calculated as the standard deviation (SD) of CU Aβ‐ participants aged ≤65 (SD CUAβ‐≤65 ). The dynamic range was calculated as the SD across all subjects (SD range ). A lower the NRR (=SD CUAβ‐≤65 /SD range ) indicates more detectability. Analyses were performed at both region‐of‐interest and voxel‐wise levels. Results Across the whole cohort, [ 18 F]MK6240 exhibited lower NRR than [ 18 F]FTP in all regions. Voxel‐wise, differences were most pronounced in the frontal medial temporal regions (Figure 1). Within the four‐tracers subset, [ 18 F]PI2620 and [ 18 F]FTP showed the highest NRR in Braak II, followed by [ 18 F]RO948 and [ 18 F]MK6240. In Braak IV‐VI, [ 18 F]MK6240 consistently demonstrated the lowest values, followed by [ 18 F]PI2620, [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]RO948. Similarly, in metatemporal‐ROI and Braak III, [ 18 F]MK6240 remained the lowest, however followed by [ 18 F]FTP, [ 18 F]PI2620 and [ 18 F]RO948 (Figure 2). Lower [ 18 F]MK6240 NRR was due to larger SD range , while [ 18 F]FTP's lower values stemmed from smaller SD CUAβ‐≤65 . Conversely, high [ 18 F]PI2620 and [ 18 F]RO948 values are driven by larger SD CUAβ‐≤65 . Longitudinal analyses further confirmed that [ 18 F]MK6240 exhibited the lowest NRR across the entire brain, including AD‐related regions, with voxel‐wise differences mainly in the temporal and parietal lobes. Conclusion Tau‐PET tracers exhibit significant variability in detectability. [ 18 F]MK6240 consistently demonstrated lower NRR, implying better detectability across all regions, cross‐sectionally and longitudinally. Despite differences in NRR, [ 18 F]FTP, [ 18 F]RO948 and [ 18 F]PI2620 followed similar pattern. These results provide insights into the differential tracer detectability, helping guide their optimal use in detecting and tracking tau pathology. Ongoing follow‐up scans will further clarify longitudinal tracer detectability and its implications for tau progression in AD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→