You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Background
PET neuroimaging is a powerful diagnostic tool that quantifies amyloid and tau accumulation in vivo. Network approaches have been applied to study brain structure and function in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but it has been challenging to estimate participant‐level networks from PET given the static nature of the data (single value per region), hindering development of multimodal network integration approached in clinical research. Here, we propose a novel framework to derive participant‐level tau similarity networks, from regional PI‐2620 tau PET in 1613 participants from the HABS‐HD study, one of the largest and most diverse community cohorts.
Method
Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVr, normalized to inferior cerebellum) were extracted from 100 cortical regions from the Schaefer functional parcellation. Two types of participant‐level networks were generated: (1) a similarity network, where each connection (edge (i,j)) was computed as 1‐abs(SUVr(i)‐SUVr(j)) and normalized by the maximum difference for each participant, and (2) a reciprocal of absolute difference (RAD) network computed as 1/abs(SUVr(i)‐SUVr(j)). Networks were then averaged across participants and compared against an existing framework of an intersubject correlation (“covariance network”) that is estimated through inter‐regional Pearson correlation of SUVr values across participants. Finally, participants were stratified as Tau+ and Tau‐ based on an SUVr cutoff of 1.1, which was the mean SUVr in Schaefer regions that fall >60% within the tau medial temporal meta‐ROI, with networks generated for each subgroup.
Result
All three network types display a block structure within canonical resting state networks (Figure 1). Edge weight correlations between the covariance network and the two average participant‐level network types were moderate (Pearson r’s 0.49 and 0.32). Average participant‐level networks were highly correlated (r=0.80). Tau positivity stratified networks (Figure 2) were nearly identical for similarity networks, while only moderately correlated for RAD networks (r=0.67).
Conclusion
Normalization in similarity networks would allow for investigations of topological properties of these networks, improving our understanding of AD neurobiology, while RAD networks, which preserve magnitude of SUVr differences, would facilitate patient‐centric multimodal network approaches. These participant‐level PET networks show promise for future integration with MRI brain connectivity networks to develop precision approaches for diagnostic subtyping of AD.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, Indiana Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, Center for Neuroimaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
2 Indiana University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA
3 Indiana Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, Center for Neuroimaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
4 Institute for Translational Research, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA
5 Indiana Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, Center for Neuroimaging, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA





