MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559061246 · doi:10.3233/jad-160424

Physical Exercise Moderates the Relationship of Apolipoprotein E (APOE) Genotype and Dementia Risk: A Population-Based Study

2016· article· en· W2559061246 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Fenesi, Hanna Fang, Ana Kovačević, Mark Oremus, Parminder Raina, Jennifer J. Heisz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApolipoprotein EDementiaGenotypePsychologyPopulationPhysical activityMedicineGerontologyInternal medicineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyGeneticsBiologyDiseaseEnvironmental healthGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetics and lifestyle independently determine dementia risk, but the interaction is unclear. We assessed the interactive relationship of apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and physical exercise on dementia risk over a 5-year period in 1,646 older adults from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging who were dementia-free at baseline. Physical exercise moderated the relationship between genotype and dementia (p < 0.01). Specifically, for APOE ɛ4 non-carriers, the odds of developing dementia were higher in non-exercisers than exercisers (OR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.44, 2.71, p < 0.001), whereas, for APOE ɛ4 carriers, the odds of developing dementia were not significantly different between non-exercisers and exercisers (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.46, 1.31, p = 0.34). Given that most individuals are not at genetic risk, physical exercise may be an effective strategy for preventing dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations77
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207