Genetic variation modifies risk for neurodegeneration based on biomarker status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While a great deal of work has gone into understanding the relationship between Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, brain atrophy, and disease progression, less work has attempted to investigate how genetic variation modifies these relationships. The goal of this study was two-fold. First, we sought to identify high-risk vs. low-risk individuals based on their CSF tau and Aβ load and characterize these individuals with regard to brain atrophy in an AD-relevant region of interest. Next, we sought to identify genetic variants that modified the relationship between biomarker classification and neurodegeneration. METHODS: Participants were categorized based on established cut-points for biomarker positivity. Mixed model regression was used to quantify longitudinal change in the left inferior lateral ventricle. Interaction analyses between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and biomarker group status were performed using a genome wide association study (GWAS) approach. Correction for multiple comparisons was performed using the Bonferroni procedure. RESULTS: One intergenic SNP (rs4866650) and one SNP within the SPTLC1 gene (rs7849530) modified the association between amyloid positivity and neurodegeneration. A transcript variant of WDR11-AS1 gene (rs12261764) modified the association between tau positivity and neurodegeneration. These effects were consistent across the two sub-datasets and explained approximately 3% of variance in ventricular dilation. One additional SNP (rs6887649) modified the association between amyloid positivity and baseline ventricular volume, but was not observed consistently across the sub-datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation modifies the association between AD biomarkers and neurodegeneration. Genes that regulate the molecular response in the brain to oxidative stress may be particularly relevant to neural vulnerability to the damaging effects of amyloid-β.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".