Exploring a weighted composite score for harmonization of 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐ Flortaucipir: linearity and correlations with cognitive measures in a head‐to‐head tau PET dataset – The HEAD Study

Abstract Background Harmonization of the two most commonly used Tau PET tracers, 18F‐Flortaucipir and 18F‐MK6240 has proven to be complex. Unlike the centiloid scale for amyloid tracers, Tau PET SUVRs of the two tracers are not linearly comparable and vary markedly in dynamic range and sensitivity. Method Tau PET SUVRs for Braak stage (1‐6) in 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐Flortaucipir were obtained from the Longitudinal multicenter head‐to‐head harmonization of tau‐PET tracers (HEAD) project. For training, we used 13 amyloid confirmed AD, 24 amyloid confirmed MCI and 66 amyloid negative controls. To assess linearity and correlations with neuropsychological tests, we included the training data as well as 74 subjects of unknown or inconsistent amyloid status. Two methods of generating outcome measures were used. (1) As a stand‐in for Tau load, similar to the centiloid scale, a score of 100, 50 or 0 was given to participants of the training set by multiplying CDR score by 100. Hierarchical and ridge regression were performed for each tracer using PET‐Braak SUVRs as predictive variables. Regression coefficients were used to calculate an outcome measure for all participants. (2) Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied for each tracer to the vectors of PET‐Braak regional SUVR of the training subset. Projections along the principal axis were calculated for both modalities Result Hierarchical, ridge regression and PCA all yielded composite measures with good linear dependence between the two tracers (r 2 for hierarchical, ridge and PCA were 0.84, 0.80, 0.80, respectively). Regions remaining in the hierarchical regression analyses varied between tracers: predictive regions for 18F‐MK6240 were PET‐Braak 1, 4 and 5, while 18F‐Flortaucipir used only PET‐Braak 1 and 5. Composite measures correlated well with MMSE and total MOCA score with all composite measures r < ‐0.61. Conclusion While both tracers may have different sensitivities to regional Tau distributions and disease stages, weighting multiple regions differently for each tracer gives a composite score linearly comparable across tracers that correlates with neuropsychological measures. This study is limited by the low total tau load and impairment level of all participants and would benefit from the inclusion of patients with more disease progression.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.089551
Primary Topic
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exploring a weighted composite score for harmonization of 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐ Flortaucipir: linearity and correlations with cognitive measures in a head‐to‐head tau PET dataset – The HEAD Study

Val J. Lowe, Andrea Franco, Tharick Ali Pascoal, Guilherme Povala et al.
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
article

Exploring a weighted composite score for harmonization of 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐ Flortaucipir: linearity and correlations with cognitive measures in a head‐to‐head tau PET dataset – The HEAD Study

Val J. Lowe, Andrea Franco, Tharick Ali Pascoal, Guilherme Povala, Belén Pascual, Joseph C. Masdeu, William E. Klunk, Guilherme Bauer‐Negrini, David N. Soleimani‐Meigooni, Suzanne L. Baker, Firoza Zubeida Lussier, Lívia Amaral, Brian A. Gordon, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Quentin Finn, Tam Vo, Hwamee Oh
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Harmonization of the two most commonly used Tau PET tracers, 18F‐Flortaucipir and 18F‐MK6240 has proven to be complex. Unlike the centiloid scale for amyloid tracers, Tau PET SUVRs of the two tracers are not linearly comparable and vary markedly in dynamic range and sensitivity. Method Tau PET SUVRs for Braak stage (1‐6) in 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐Flortaucipir were obtained from the Longitudinal multicenter head‐to‐head harmonization of tau‐PET tracers (HEAD) project. For training, we used 13 amyloid confirmed AD, 24 amyloid confirmed MCI and 66 amyloid negative controls. To assess linearity and correlations with neuropsychological tests, we included the training data as well as 74 subjects of unknown or inconsistent amyloid status. Two methods of generating outcome measures were used. (1) As a stand‐in for Tau load, similar to the centiloid scale, a score of 100, 50 or 0 was given to participants of the training set by multiplying CDR score by 100. Hierarchical and ridge regression were performed for each tracer using PET‐Braak SUVRs as predictive variables. Regression coefficients were used to calculate an outcome measure for all participants. (2) Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied for each tracer to the vectors of PET‐Braak regional SUVR of the training subset. Projections along the principal axis were calculated for both modalities Result Hierarchical, ridge regression and PCA all yielded composite measures with good linear dependence between the two tracers (r 2 for hierarchical, ridge and PCA were 0.84, 0.80, 0.80, respectively). Regions remaining in the hierarchical regression analyses varied between tracers: predictive regions for 18F‐MK6240 were PET‐Braak 1, 4 and 5, while 18F‐Flortaucipir used only PET‐Braak 1 and 5. Composite measures correlated well with MMSE and total MOCA score with all composite measures r < ‐0.61. Conclusion While both tracers may have different sensitivities to regional Tau distributions and disease stages, weighting multiple regions differently for each tracer gives a composite score linearly comparable across tracers that correlates with neuropsychological measures. This study is limited by the low total tau load and impairment level of all participants and would benefit from the inclusion of patients with more disease progression.

Alzheimer s & DementiaVol. 20(S2)
Houston Methodist (US), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US), University of Pittsburgh (US), University of California, San Francisco (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Brown University (US), McGill University Health Centre (CA), Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.