A Network of Genetic Effects on Non-Demented Cognitive Aging: Alzheimer’s Genetic Risk ( <i>CLU + CR1 + PICALM</i> ) Intensifies Cognitive Aging Genetic Risk ( <i>COMT + BDNF</i> ) Selectively for <i>APOE</i> <i>ɛ</i> 4 Carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trajectories of complex neurocognitive phenotypes in preclinical aging may be produced differentially through selective and interactive combinations of genetic risk. OBJECTIVE: We organize three possible combinations into a "network" of genetic risk indices derived from polymorphisms associated with normal and impaired cognitive aging, as well as Alzheimer's disease (AD). Specifically, we assemble and examine three genetic clusters relevant to non-demented cognitive trajectories: 1) Apolipoprotein E (APOE), 2) a Cognitive Aging Genetic Risk Score (CA-GRS; Catechol-O-methyltransferase + Brain-derived neurotrophic factor), and 3) an AD-Genetic Risk Score (AD-GRS; Clusterin + Complement receptor 1 + Phosphatidylinositol-binding clathrin assembly protein). METHOD: We use an accelerated longitudinal design (n = 634; age range = 55-95 years) to test whether AD-GRS (low versus high) moderates the effect of increasing CA-GRS risk on executive function (EF) performance and change as stratified by APOE status (ɛ4+ versus ɛ4-). RESULTS: APOEɛ4 carriers with high AD-GRS had poorer EF performance at the centering age (75 years) and steeper 9-year decline with increasing CA-GRS but this association was not present in APOEɛ4 carriers with low AD-GRS. CONCLUSIONS: APOEɛ4 carriers with high AD-GRS are at elevated risk of cognitive decline when they also possess higher CA-GRS risk. Genetic risk from both common cognitive aging and AD-related indices may interact in intensification networks to differentially predict (1) level and trajectories of EF decline and (2) potential selective vulnerability for transitions into impairment and 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".