Impaired memory-guided attention in asymptomatic APOE4 carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention and memory may be impaired in individuals at-risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), though standard cognitive assessments typically study the two in parallel. In reality, attention and memory interact to facilitate information processing, and thus a more integrative approach is required. Here, we used a novel auditory paradigm to assess how long-term memory for auditory scenes facilitates detection of an auditory target in asymptomatic carriers of Apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4), the principle risk gene for late-onset AD. We tested 60 healthy middle-aged adults with varying doses of APOE4 - 20 APOE4 homozygotes (E4/E4), 20 heterozygotes (E3/E4) and 20 non-carriers (E3/E3) - to determine effect on memory-guided attention. While explicit memory was unaffected by genotype, APOE4 dose significantly impaired memory-guided attention. A relationship between explicit memory and memory-guided attention was observed in non-carriers, but this correlation was not significant in E3/E4 and E4/E4 carriers, suggesting that APOE4 carriers rely less on explicit memory to facilitate attention. Since memory-guided attention declined with age in APOE4 homozygotes, this impairment may reflect early disease rather than being a life-long trait. In sum, asymptomatic individuals at increased genetic risk of AD show an age-dependent decline in attention-memory interaction when memory alone is not impaired.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".