Interaction between variants in <i>CLU</i> and <i>MS4A4E</i> modulates Alzheimer's disease risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ebbert et al. reported gene-gene interactions between rs11136000-rs670139 (CLU-MS4A4E) and rs3865444-rs670139 (CD33-MS4A4E). We evaluate these interactions in the largest data set for an epistasis study. METHODS: We tested interactions using 3837 cases and 4145 controls from Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Consortium using meta-analyses and permutation analyses. We repeated meta-analyses stratified by apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status, estimated combined odds ratio (OR) and population attributable fraction (cPAF), and explored causal variants. RESULTS: Results support the CLU-MS4A4E interaction and a dominant effect. An association between CLU-MS4A4E and APOE ε4 negative status exists. The estimated synergy factor, OR, and cPAF for rs11136000-rs670139 are 2.23, 2.45, and 8.0, respectively. We identified potential causal variants. DISCUSSION: We replicated the CLU-MS4A4E interaction in a large case-control series and observed APOE ε4 and possible dominant effect. The CLU-MS4A4E OR is higher than any Alzheimer's disease locus except APOE ε4, APP, and TREM2. We estimated an 8% decrease in Alzheimer's disease incidence without CLU-MS4A4E risk alleles and identified potential causal variants.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".