MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886493339 · doi:10.1159/000490739

Definition of Late Onset Alzheimer’s Disease and Anticipation Effect of Genome-Wide Significant Risk Variants: Pilot Study of the APOE e4 Allele

2018· review· en· W2886493339 on OpenAlexaff
Vincenzo De Luca, Gianfranco Spalletta, Renan P. Souza, Ariel Graff, Luciana Bastos‐Rodrigues, Maria Aparecida Camargos Bicalho

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychobiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Apolipoprotein EAlleleDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseAge of onsetPsychologyGenome-wide association studyGeneticsDegenerative diseaseNeuroscienceMedicinePsychiatryBiologyInternal medicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the role of apolipoprotein E (APOE) e4 influencing the age at onset (AAO) of Alzheimer's disease (AD). In AD, the AAO of dementia varies from 40 to 90 years. Usually, AD patients who develop symptoms before the age of 65 are considered as early-onset AD (EOAD). However, considering the heterogeneity of the AD onset, the definition of late-onset AD (LOAD) cannot rely on an arbitrary cut-off. Thus, we aim to validate the anticipation effect of the APOE e4 allele in LOAD. Methods/Overview: Firstly, the optimal number of AAO subgroups was determined using MCLUST for 3 AD samples from Italy, Brazil, and from the ADNI consortium. MCLUST selects the best-fitting model based on the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and the ideal cut-off for separating early onset from late onset in each sample. Then, when the AAO was modeled for each sample, the finite mixture model (FMM) analysis was used to analyze the effect of the APOE e4 in determining the risk for anticipated onset in LOAD. For the Brazilian sample, the ancestry was incorporated as a covariate. The FMM results from the 3 samples were meta-analyzed using METAL. RESULTS: We performed the AAO analysis on the APOE e4 in 474 Italian patients enrolled at the IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation in Italy, 135 AD from the Outpatients Reference Center for Geriatrics from the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil, and 376 from the ADNI consortium. Using this distribution model, we found that the specific LOAD cut-off was ≥64 for the Italian sample, ≥67 for the ADNI sample, and ≥74 for the Brazilian sample. The APOE e4 showed a significant anticipatory effect specific for LOAD in all 3 samples. The METAL analysis for the anticipatory e4 effect was genome-wide significant when analyzing the LOAD effect size under the fixed model (beta = -8.1; p < 0.0001). However, when analyzing EOAD there was no genome-wide significant anticipation effect (beta = 1.9244; p = 0.0219). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the mixture analysis can refine the ideal cut-off for defining LOAD as a homogeneous genetic entity. We also validated the e4 allele anticipatory effect only in LOAD. In summary, the tool developed in this study is a sophisticated statistical pipeline to analyze the AAO in genome-wide association studies of AD, to find new molecular targets as a new line of translational research to foster drug discovery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychobiologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207