The relationship between complement factor C3, APOE ε4, amyloid and tau in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammation is becoming increasingly recognized as an important contributor to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. As a part of the innate immune system, the complement cascade enhances the body's ability to destroy and remove pathogens and has recently been shown to influence Alzheimer's associated amyloid and tau pathology. However, little is known in humans about the effects of the complement system and genetic modifiers of AD risk like the ε4 allele of apolioprotein E (APOE ε4) on AD pathobiology. We evaluated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein levels from 267 individuals clinically diagnosed as cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment, and AD. Using linear models, we assessed the relationship between APOE ε4 genotype, CSF Complement 3 (C3), CSF amyloid-β (amyloid) and CSF hyperphosphorylated tau (ptau). We found a significant interaction between APOE ε4 and CSF C3 on both CSF amyloid and CSF ptau. We also found that CSF C3 is only associated with CSF ptau after accounting for CSF amyloid. Our results support a conceptual model of the AD pathogenic cascade where a synergistic relationship between the complement cascade (C3) and APOE ε4 results in elevated Alzheimer's neurodegeneration and in turn, amyloid further regulates the effect of the complement cascade on downstream tau pathology.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".