Work

Correction to: Quantitation of PET spatial extent as a potential adjunct to visual interpretation of [18F]flortaucipir imaging: TAU-SPEX

Year: 2025

Type: erratum

Abstract: The authors regret that the legends of the figures that appeared in the original published article are incorrect. Below are the correct and incorrect figure legends. Correct legend: Fig. 1 TAU-SPEX methodology. In A, the FDA-approved guidelines for [18F]flortaucipir visual read are summarized. Tau-PET images were visually read in native space independently of TAU-SPEX or SUVr. In B-D, our methodology for quantifying TAU-SPEX is shown. TAU-SPEX was developed to closely align with the existing Tau-PET visual read framework, specifically, by using a similar cerebellar scaling and threshold approach as used for visual read. In F, four example scans with corresponding visual read status, TAU-SPEX and SUVr values are shown. These example scans highlight the large variance present among visually tau-positive scans (Scan B, C and D) that is well-captured using TAU-SPEX. Moreover, the example scans in A and B highlight that whole-brain Tau- PET uptake is better captured using TAU-SPEX than SUVr. Incorrect legend: Fig. 1 TAU-SPEX methodology Correct legend: Fig. 2 Voxel-wise TAU-SPEX frequency maps and association between TAU-SPEX and SUVr. Shown in A, B, and C are the TAU-SPEX voxel-wise frequency maps for visually tau-negative participants, visually tau-positive participants, and visually tau-positive participants with Alzheimer’s disease dementia respectively. These maps reflect, for each voxel, the percentage of participants whose voxel intensity exceeded the threshold. In D, the relationship between TAU-SPEX and whole-brain SUVr is shown. Voxel-wise maps were created using BrainNet with the “Jet” colorscale. Incorrect legend: Fig. 2 Voxel-wise TAU-SPEX frequency maps and association between TAU-SPEX and SUVr Correct legend: Fig. 3 TAU-SPEX and SUVr in relation to Tau-PET visual read. Shown in A and B are TAU-SPEX and SUVr values (double y-axes) in visual read tau-negative (T-) and visual read tau-positive (T+) participants. In A, whole-brain SUVr is shown, and in B temporal meta-ROI SUVr is shown. To enable plotting TAU-SPEX and SUVr on the same axis, we z-transformed each Tau-PET metric in the total group, however, for interpretation purposes, we display raw y-axis scales instead of z-transformed y-axis scales. The scale for SUVr is shown on the left, and the scale for TAU-SPEX is shown on the right. We linked data-points from the same participants using grey lines in order to visualize the reduced variance in TAU-SPEX within visual read tau-negative participants, and the maintained (or increased) variance in TAU-SPEX within visual read tau-positive participants. In C, the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for Tau-PET visual read against TAU-SPEX, whole-brain SUVr and temporal meta-ROI SUVr are shown. In D, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying a positive Tau-PET visual read are shown. *The AUC of TAU-SPEX was significantly higher than the AUC of whole-brain SUVr (p < 0.001) and the AUC of temporal SUVr (p < 0.001). Incorrect legend: Fig. 3 TAU-SPEX and SUVr in relation to Tau-PET visual read. Correct legend: Fig. 4 Comparing antemortem TAU-SPEX and SUVr to postmortem neurofibrillary tau tangle staging. Shown on the y-axis is ante-mortem TAU-SPEX (A, D), whole-brain SUVr (B, E) or temporal meta-ROI SUVr (C, F), and on the x-axis post-mortem NFT Braak Stage shown as single stages (A, B, and C) and combined stages (D, E, and F). Datapoints are colored on TAU-SPEX status, whole-brain SUVr status or temporal SUVr status as defined using the Youden-derived thresholds in our previous analysis (see Fig. 3). The dotted lines reflect each Youden-derived threshold. A box plot was only included when at least 8 datapoints were available. The one case with Braak-V NFT pathology that fell below the threshold of both TAU-SPEX, whole-brain SUVr and temporal SUVr had a time interval of 2.46 years between PET and death. The plot includes n = 1 Braak-I, n = 2 Braak-II, n = 5 Braak-III, n = 2 Braak-IV, n = 4 Braak-V and n = 4 Braak-VI cases. Some datapoints may overlap due to having similar or identical values. Incorrect legend: Fig. 4 Comparing antemortem TAU-SPEX and SUVr to postmortem neurofibrillary tau tangle staging The original article has been corrected.

Source: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

DOI: 10.1007/s00259-025-07434-5