<i>Apolipoprotein E</i> and <i>Clusterin</i> can magnify effects of personality vulnerability on declarative memory performance in non‐demented older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent research has linked psychological (personality) factors and specific genetic risk polymorphisms to performance on neurocognitive phenotypes. We examined whether episodic or semantic memory performance is associated with (a) three personality traits (i.e. neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience), (b) two neurodegenerative-related polymorphisms (i.e. Apolipoprotein E (APOE; rs7412; rs429358), Clusterin (CLU; rs11136000)), and (c) cross-domain risk interactions (magnification effects). METHODS: Linear growth models were examined to test independent associations between personality traits and declarative memory performance, and potential interaction effects with APOE and CLU genetic risk. Normal older adults (n = 282) with personality and genetic data from the Victoria Longitudinal Study were included at baseline and for up to 14 years of follow-up. RESULTS: First, we observed that higher openness to experience levels were associated with better episodic and semantic memory. Second, three significant gene × personality interactions were associated with poorer memory performance at baseline. These synergistic effects are: (a) APOE allelic risk (ε4+) carriers with lower openness to experience levels, (b) CLU (no risk: T/T) homozygotes with higher extraversion levels, and (c) CLU (no risk: T/T) homozygotes with lower neuroticism levels. CONCLUSIONS: Specific neurodegenerative-related genetic polymorphisms (i.e. APOE and CLU) moderate and magnify the risk contributed by selected personality trait levels (i.e. openness to experience, extraversion) on declarative memory performance in non-demented aging. Future research could target interactions of other personality traits and genetic polymorphisms in different clinical populations to predict other neurocognitive deficits or transitions to cognitive impairment and dementia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".