Apolipoprotein E ε4 is superior to apolipoprotein E ε2 in predicting cognitive scores over 30 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare apolipoprotein E ε4 (Apo E ε4) and apolipoprotein E ε2 (Apo E ε2) as predictors of cognitive and functional trajectories over 30 months. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 287 community-dwelling memory clinic patients with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. The Addenbrooke Cognitive Examination, Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Delirium Index, and Nottingham Instrumental Activities of Daily Living tests were administered to each subject. RESULTS: One hundred and nine subjects (40%) carried Apo E ε4 and 48 (16.7%) carried Apo E ε2. One hundred and nine ε4-positive subjects differed significantly from 178 ε4-negative subjects in 19/52 comparisons (36.5%), whereas 46 Apo E ε2-positive subjects had 0/52 significant differences from 239 ε2-negative subjects (P < 0.0001). The variables most affected by ε4 were the Delirium Index and Mini-Mental State Examination. Instrumental Activities of Daily Living score and residence were unrelated to Apo E ε4 or ε2. CONCLUSION: Apo E ε4 positivity predicted four cognitive scores measured every 6 months over 30 months. Apo E ε2 scores predicted none of 52 comparisons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".