Evaluation discrepancy between [ <sup>18</sup> F]MK‐6240 and [ <sup>18</sup> F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET using tau‐PET overlap index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The overlap index (OI), previously introduced by Lee et al. (2022), has proven to be a reliable method for detecting tau accumulation via tau‐PET imaging with flortaucipir ([ 18 F]AV‐1451). This technique identifies voxel‐wise increases in standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) across serial scans. However, the relationship between tau‐PET measurements obtained with [ 18 F]MK‐6240 and [ 18 F]AV‐1451 using the OI remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the relationship between [ 18 F]MK‐6240 and [ 18 F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET using the tau‐PET OI. Method The study included 27 participants from the HEAD project, all of whom underwent two serial tau‐PET scans (each [ 18 F]MK‐6240 and [ 18 F]AV‐1451) along with 3T T1‐weighted MRI, acquired within an average interval of 18 months. SUVr maps for each tau‐PET tracer were normalized to the cerebellar crus grey matter, and MR images were co‐registered to the MCALT T1 template. Tau‐PET images were spatially resampled to the template space, and OI was computed within a predefined META‐ROI using an intensity threshold of 1.3 and a cutoff of 0.5. Clusters containing fewer than 20 contiguous voxels were excluded from analysis. The META‐ROI SUVr was calculated as the average SUVr across the selected region's SUVr. Additionally, a visual comparison was performed to assess the spatial overlap of OI‐identified voxels between the two tau‐PET tracers. Result OI values within the META‐ROI exhibited a broad distribution between [ 18 F]MK‐6240 and [ 18 F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET, particularly in cognitively unimpaired (CU) and younger individuals (Figure 1A). Unlike the OI distribution, the relationship between META‐ROI SUVr values of both tracers followed an exponential trend (Figure 1B). Visual inspection revealed that OI‐detected voxels in [ 18 F]MK‐6240 tau‐PET were frequently localized to the meninges, an established site of off‐target binding, which was not observed in [ 18 F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET (Figure 2). Conclusion The association between [ 18 F]MK‐6240 and [ 18 F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET, as assessed using the OI, exhibited considerable variability in CU and younger participants. Additionally, the presence of overlapping voxels in the meninges in [ 18 F]MK‐6240 tau‐PET highlights the need to account for and potentially exclude off‐target binding effects in these populations. The influence of meningeal signal and other off‐target binding on the OI in the temporal META‐ROI needs to be further evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".