Polygenic Risk Score for Alzheimer’s Disease Is Associated With Ch4 Volume in Normal Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a common neurodegenerative disease. APOE is the strong genetic risk factor of AD. The existing genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified many single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with minor effects on AD risk and the polygenic risk score (PRS) is presented to combine the effect of these SNPs. On the other hand, the volumes of various brain regions in AD patients have significant changes compared to that in normal individuals. Ch4 brain region containing at least 90% cholinergic neurons is the most extensive and conspicuous in the basal forebrain. Here, we investigated the relationship between the combined effect of AD-associated SNPs and Ch4 volume using the PRS approach. Our results showed that Ch4 volume in AD patients is significantly different from that in normal control subjects (p-value < 2.2×10-16). AD PRS, is not associated with the Ch4 volume in AD patients, excluding the APOE region (p-value = 0.264) and including the APOE region (p-value = 0.213). However, AD best-fit PRS, excluding the APOE region, is associated with Ch4 volume in normal control subjects (p-value = 0.015). AD PRS based on 8070 SNPs could explain 3.35% variance of Ch4 volume. In addition, the p-value of AD PRS model in normal control subjects, including the APOE region, is 0.006. AD PRS based on 8079 SNPs could explain 4.23% variance of Ch4 volume. In conclusion, PRS based on AD-associated SNPs is significantly related to Ch4 volume in normal subjects but not in patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".