Cited by 15Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Deep learning improves utility of tau PET in the study of Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Zou, James, Park, David, Johnson, Aubrey, Feng, Xinyang, Pardo, Michelle, France, Jeanelle, Tomljanovic, Zeljko, Brickman, Adam M. +5 more·2021·Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring

Abstract

Introduction: Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging targeting neurofibrillary tau tangles is increasingly used in the study of Alzheimer's disease (AD), but its utility may be limited by conventional quantitative or qualitative evaluation techniques in earlier disease states. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are effective in learning spatial patterns for image classification. Methods: 18F‐MK6240 (n = 320) and AV‐1451 (n = 446) PET images were pooled from multiple studies. We performed iterations with differing permutations of radioligands, heuristics, and architectures. Performance was compared to a standard region of interest (ROI)‐based approach on prediction of memory impairment. We visualized attention of the network to illustrate decision making. Results: Overall, models had high accuracy (> 80%) with good average sensitivity and specificity (75% and 82%, respectively), and had comparable or higher accuracy to the ROI standard. Visualizations of model attention highlight known characteristics of tau radioligand binding. Discussion: CNNs could improve tau PET's role in early disease and extend the utility of tau PET across generations of radioligands.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/dad2.12264

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CNNs applied to PET scans may achieve high area-under-the-curve scores, but their saliency maps frequently fail to align with known pathological regions, reducing clinician trust.

    “Convolutional neural networks applied to PET scans may achieve high area-under-the-curve scores, but their saliency maps frequently fail to align with known pathological regions, reducing clinician trust.”

    From Artificial intelligence-driven multi-omics approaches in Alzheimer's disease: Progress, challenges, and future directions (2025) · cites this paper as [256]

    The Results (Model performance; page unavailable) report model accuracy of at least 80% and evaluation by AUC, but do not give a CNN AUC value in the retrieved passage. Contrary to the claim about frequent misalignment, the Discussion (page unavailable) says the sensitivity analysis found expected binding patterns in regions affected by Alzheimer’s disease; our copy does not link the maps to reduced clinician trust. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Benchmarking studies indicate that outputs of XAI techniques can be inconsistent and model-dependent.

    “Techniques such as attention layers, SHAP, and patch-based visualizations aim to localize voxel- or gene-level contribution, yet benchmarking studies indicate that their outputs can be inconsistent and model-dependent256,282,289.”

    From Artificial intelligence-driven multi-omics approaches in Alzheimer's disease: Progress, challenges, and future directions (2025) · cites this paper as [256]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the paper’s occlusion sensitivity analysis did not consistently implicate a specific brain region, supporting a limited claim about variability in its visualizations. The Methods > Visualization and Results > Occlusion sensitivity analyses (pages unavailable) describe analyses of the authors’ tau PET models, not a benchmark of XAI techniques or evidence that outputs are model-dependent across techniques. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [35]Paszke A, Gross S, Chintala S, Chanan G, Yang E & DeVito Z et al. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. in NIPS‐W (Long Beach, CA). 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zou, J., Park, D., Johnson, A., Feng, X., Pardo, M., France, J., Tomljanovic, Z., Brickman, A. M., Devanand, D. P., Luchsinger, J. A., Kreisl, W. C., Provenzano, F. A., & Initiative, F. T. A. D. N.
Affiliations
  • The Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain New York New York USA
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Department of Medicine Columbia University Medical Center New York New York USA
Corresponding author
Provenzano, Frank A.
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-01
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
e12264-e12264
ISSN
2352-8729 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206124362
Cited by
15
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01AG050440, R01 AG055422, RF1AG051556, RF1AG051556‐01S2, R01AG055299, K99AG065506, K24AG045334, UL1TR001873)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
tau PET, Alzheimer's disease, convolutional neural networks, [18F]MK-6240, early disease detection, attention visualization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review