Genetic risk for alzheimer disease is distinct from genetic risk for amyloid deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and is responsible for a huge and growing health care burden in the developed and developing world. The polygenic risk score (PRS) approach has shown 75 to 84% prediction accuracy of identifying individuals with AD risk. METHODS: In this study, we tested the prediction accuracy of AD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and amyloid deposition risks with PRS, including and excluding APOE genotypes in a large publicly available dataset with extensive phenotypic data, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort. Among MCI individuals with amyloid-positive status, we examined PRS prediction accuracy in those who converted to AD. In addition, we divided polygenic risk score by biological pathways and tested them independently for distinguishing between AD, MCI, and amyloid deposition. RESULTS: We found that AD and MCI are predicted by both APOE genotype and PRS (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.82% and 68%, respectively). Amyloid deposition is predicted by APOE only (AUC = 79%). Further progression to AD of individuals with MCI and amyloid-positive status is predicted by PRS over and above APOE (AUC = 67%). In pathway-specific PRS analyses, the protein-lipid complex has the strongest association with AD and amyloid deposition even when genes in the APOE region were removed (p = 0.0055 and p = 0.0079, respectively). INTERPRETATION: The results showed different pattern of APOE contribution in PRS risk predictions of AD/MCI and amyloid deposition. Our study suggests that APOE mostly contributes to amyloid accumulation and the PRS affects risk of further conversion to AD. ANN NEUROL 2019;86:427-435.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".