Sex differences in brain aging among adults with family history of Alzheimer’s disease and APOE4 genetic risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that Alzheimer's Disease (AD) risk factors may differentially contribute to disease trajectory in women than men. Determining the effect of AD risk factors on brain aging in women, compared to men, is critical for understanding whether there are sex differences in the pathways towards AD in cognitively intact but at-risk adults. Brain Age Gap (BAG) is a concept used increasingly as a measure of brain health; BAG is defined as the difference between predicted age (based on structural MRI) and chronological age, with negative values reflecting preserved brain health with age. Using BAG, we investigated whether there were sex differences in the brain effects of AD risk factors (i.e., family history of AD, and carrying an apolipoprotein E ε4 allele [+APOE4]) in cognitively intact adults, and if this relationship was moderated by modifiable factors (i.e. body mass index [BMI], blood pressure and physical activity). We undertook a cross-sectional study of structural MRIs from 1067 cognitively normal adults across four neuroimaging datasets. An elastic net regression model found that women with a family history of AD and +APOE4 genotype had more advanced brain aging than their male counterparts. In a sub-cohort of women with those risk factors, higher BMI was associated with less brain aging whereas lower BMI was not. In a sub-cohort of women and men with +APOE4, engaging in physical activity was more beneficial to men's brain aging than women's. Our results demonstrate that AD risk factors are associated with greater brain aging in women than men, although there may be more unexplored modifiable factors that influence this relationship. These findings suggest that the complex interplay between unmodifiable and modifiable AD risk factors can potentially protect against brain aging in women and men.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".