APOE ε4 status is associated with white matter hyperintensities volume accumulation rate independent of AD diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the relationship between carriage of APOE ε4 allele and evolution of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) volume, we longitudinally studied 339 subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort with diagnoses ranging from normal controls to probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). A purpose-built longitudinal automatic method was used to segment WMH using constraints derived from an atlas-based model selection applied to a time-averaged image. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the differences in rate of change across diagnosis and genetic groups. After adjustment for covariates (age, sex, and total intracranial volume), homozygous APOE ε4ε4 subjects had a significantly higher rate of WMH accumulation (22.5% per year 95% CI [14.4, 31.2] for a standardized population having typical values of covariates) compared with the heterozygous (ε4ε3) subjects (10.0% per year [6.7, 13.4]) and homozygous ε3ε3 (6.6% per year [4.1, 9.3]) subjects. Rates of accumulation increased with diagnostic severity; controls accumulated 5.8% per year 95% CI: [2.2, 9.6] for the standardized population, early mild cognitive impairment 6.6% per year [3.9, 9.4], late mild cognitive impairment 12.5% per year [8.2, 17.0] and AD subjects 14.7% per year [6.0, 24.0]. Following adjustment for APOE status, these differences became nonstatistically significant suggesting that APOE ε4 genotype is the major driver of accumulation of WMH volume rather than diagnosis of AD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".