MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126251818 · doi:10.3233/jad-131841

No Differences in Hippocampal Volume between Carriers and Non-Carriers of the ApoE ε4 and ε2 Alleles in Young Healthy Adolescents

2014· article· en· W2126251818 on OpenAlexaff
Wasim Khan, Vincent Giampietro, Cedric E. Ginestet, Flavio Dell’Acqua, David Bouls, Stephen Newhouse, Richard Dobson, Tobias Banaschewski, Gareth J. Barker, Arun L.W. Bokde, Christian Büchel, Patricia Conrod, Herta Flor, Vincent Frouin, Hugh Garavan, Penny Gowland, Andreas Heinz, Bernd Ittermann, Hervé Lemaître, Frauke Nees, Tomáš Paus, Zdenka Pausová, Marcella Rietschel, Michael N. Smolka, Andreas Ströhle, Jean Gallinat, Eric Westman, G Schumann, Simon Lovestone, Andrew Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersIXICOKing's College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsAlleleApolipoprotein EHippocampal formationDiseaseGeneticsGeneMedicineBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alleles of the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene are known to modulate the genetic risk for developing late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and have been associated with hippocampal volume differences in AD. However, the effect of these alleles on hippocampal volume in younger subjects has yet to be clearly established. Using a large cohort of more than 1,400 adolescents, this study found no hippocampal volume or hippocampal asymmetry differences between carriers and non-carriers of the ApoE ε4 or ε2 alleles, nor dose-dependent effects of either allele, suggesting that regionally specific effects of these polymorphisms may only become apparent in later life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207