Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease by Self-Reported Cancer History in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies suggest self-reported cancer history is associated with decreased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, little is known about how self-reported cancer affects longitudinal AD progression, the primary outcome in clinical trials and observational studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine self-reported cancer history's effect on longitudinal AD progression in an observational study. METHODS: We utilized data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) to evaluate progression to AD by self-reported all-cancer, breast, prostate, colorectal, or non-melanoma skin cancer history. Linear mixed effects models were used to examine baseline differences and rates of progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) by self-reported cancer history. Age at AD onset was examined using consensus clinical diagnoses with Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 1,271 participants, models revealed no significant differences in progression over time but did reveal significantly lower baseline ADAS-Cog score, indicating better cognition at a given age in those with self-reported cancer history. Cox models indicated those with self-reported cancer history had significantly later age of AD onset (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.53-0.85) after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSION: Participants with self-reported cancer history entered ADNI with better cognition and later age of AD onset, but progressed similarly to participants without such history, indicating differences in AD between those with and without self-reported cancer history emerge early in the disease course. Such differences in longitudinal progression by self-reported cancer history could affect AD trials and observational studies, given the current focus on early disease course. Further investigation is warranted with detailed longitudinal assessment of cancer and AD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".