Association of Alzheimer’s Disease Genetic Risk Loci with Cognitive Performance and Decline: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association of Apolipoprotein E (APOE) with late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) and cognitive endophenotypes of aging has been widely investigated. There is increasing interest in evaluating the association of other LOAD risk loci with cognitive performance and decline. The results of these studies have been inconsistent and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review of studies investigating the association of non-APOE LOAD risk loci with cognitive performance in older adults. Studies published from January 2009 to April 2018 were identified through a PubMed database search using keywords and by scanning reference lists. Studies were included if they were either cross-sectional or longitudinal in design, included at least one genome-wide significant LOAD risk loci or a genetic risk score, and had one objective measure of cognition. Quality assessment of the studies was conducted using the quality of genetic studies (Q-Genie) tool. Of 2,466 studies reviewed, 49 met inclusion criteria. Fifteen percent of the associations between non-APOE LOAD risk loci and cognition were significant. However, these associations were not replicated across studies, and the majority were rendered non-significant when adjusting for multiple testing. One-third of the studies included genetic risk scores, and these were typically significant only when APOE was included. The findings of this systematic review do not support a consistent association between individual non-APOE LOAD risk and cognitive performance or decline. However, evidence suggests that aggregate LOAD genetic risk exerts deleterious effects on decline in episodic memory and global cognition.
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".