MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Age-dependent effect of APOE and polygenic component on Alzheimer's disease

2020· article· en· W3021377915 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eftychia Bellou, Emily Baker, Ganna Leonenko, Matthew Bracher‐Smith, Paula Daunt, Georgina Menzies, Julie Williams, Valentina Escott‐Price

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurobiology of Aging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute on AgingUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsApolipoprotein EDiseaseBiobankHeritabilityAlzheimer's diseaseDementiaAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNeurogeneticsMedicineBiologyGeneticsPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating neurodegenerative condition with significant genetic heritability. Several genes have been implicated in the onset of AD with the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene being the strongest single genetic risk loci. Evidence suggests that the effect of APOE alters with age during disease progression. Here, we aim to investigate the impact of APOE and other variants outside the APOE region on AD risk in younger and older participants. Using data from both the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and the UK Biobank, we computed the polygenic risk score of each individual informed by the latest genetic study from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project. Our analysis showed that the effect of APOE on the disease risk is greater in younger participants and reduces as participants' age increases. Our findings indicate the increased impact of polygenic risk score as participants' age increases. Therefore, AD in older individuals can potentially be triggered by the cumulative effect of genes which are outside the APOE region.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurobiology of AgingSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207