MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7122618314 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_106723

PART characterization using MK‐6240 and Flortaucipir

2025· article· en· W7122618314 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Soares, Emma Patrice Ruppert, Pamela C.L. Ferreira, Marina Scop Madeiros, Andreia Rocha, Matheus Scarpatto Rodrigues, Bruna Bellaver, Markley Silva Oliveira, Guilherme Povala, Lívia Amaral, Firoza Z Lussier, Dana L Tudorascu, Thomas K Karikari, David N. Soleimani‐Meigooni, Juan M. Fortea, VJ Lowe, Hwamee Oh, Belen Pascual, Brian A. Gordon, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Suzanne L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceTauopathyDementiaCohortCharacterization (materials science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Older adults with brain tau pathology but no evident amyloid‐beta (A) pathology can be referred to as primary age‐related tauopathy (PART). However, in vivo characterization of PART using biomarkers remains unclear, varying based on the method used to define tau pathology (e.g. different tau‐PET tracers). Here, we conducted a head‐to‐head characterization of PART using two different tau‐PET tracers. Method We studied 433 individuals from the HEAD cohort (244 CU, 138 MCI, and 51 with dementia). Participants underwent clinical assessments, MRI, A‐PET, both MK‐6240 and Flortaucipir scans, and a subset with plasma biomarkers ( n = 332). A‐PET positivity was defined as Centiloid>24. Tau‐positivity(T) was determined by MK‐6240 and Flortaucipir SUVR values exceeding the mean+2SD in at least one Braak region anchored in CU A‐ individuals followed by visual confirmation in A‐/T+ cases. Concordance across biomarkers was assessed among PART (A‐/T+), A‐/T‐ and A+/T+ groups. Plasma GFAP, p ‐tau217, NFL levels, and Centiloids were compared across A/T groups using linear regression. Result We found a total of 25 (5.8 %) cases classified as A‐/T+ defined by at least one tau tracer (74±6.3 years, 52% females, 17 CU, 3 MCI, 5 with dementia). Detection of A‐/T+ cases varied by tracer: MK‐6240( n = 20), Flortaucipir( n = 16) (Figure 1A). Among A‐/T+ individuals, MK‐6240 identified 13 CU, 4 MCI, and 3 dementia cases, while Flortaucipir identified 11 CU, 3 MCI, and 2 dementia cases(Figure 1B). Concordance between MK‐6240 and Flortaucipir in A‐/T+ cases was low ( n = 11, 44%)(Figure 1C). A‐/T+ individuals showed no significant biomarker differences from A‐/T‐ but had lower biomarker levels than A+/T+: Centiloids (MK‐6240: T=15.08, p <0.001; Flortaucipir: T=14.36, p <0.001), GFAP (MK‐6240: T=5.04, p < 0.01; Flortaucipir: T=2.92, p <0.001), p ‐tau217 (MK‐6240: T=7.77, p <0.001; Flortaucipir: T=6.34, p <0.001), except for NFL (MK‐6240: T=1.35, p = 0.18; Flortaucipir: T=1.14, p = 0.25)(Figure 2). Representative A and tau biomarker cases (Figure 3A), along with discordant cases classified as T+ by only one tracer (Figure 3B), are illustrated. Conclusion Our preliminary analysis revealed a higher prevalence of A‐/T+ cases with MK‐6240 than Flortaucipir, low concordance between tracers and consistently lower biomarker levels in A‐/T+ compared to A+/T+. Larger studies and longitudinal analyses are necessary to ascertain the pathological trajectories of A‐/T+ individuals with varying tau biomarker profiles.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.294 · 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→