Interactive rather than independent effect of <i>APOE</i> and sex potentiates tau deposition in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) is the most important genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer disease, with the ε4 allele being associated with increased cerebral amyloid-β and tau pathologies. Although APOE has been suggested to have a stronger effect in women as compared to men, there is a lack of comprehensive assessment on how the interactive effect of APOE and sex modulates regional vulnerability to tau accumulation. We previously have shown the regional vulnerability to the interactive effect of tau and APOE, yet the sex difference was not specifically addressed. In this study, we leveraged PET imaging data from the Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia cohort at McGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging to elucidate the APOE-by-sex interactive effect on tau burden. We hypothesized sex-dependent regional vulnerability to tau deposition. PET radiopharmaceuticals [18F]AZD4694 and [18F]MK6240 were used to assess amyloid-β and tau level respectively in 277 subjects from the Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia cohort. We found that the interaction between APOE and sex, rather than their independent main effects, was associated with abnormal tau accumulation in medial temporal regions. Specifically, we found that female APOEε4 carriers showed significantly higher tau burden in early tau deposition regions including the hippocampus, entorhinal and parahippocampal cortices, after accounting for age, educational attainment, clinical diagnosis and neocortical amyloid load. We replicated these findings in 221 subjects from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort, in which a different tau-PET radioligand, [18F]flortaucipir, was used to assess tau burden. In conclusion, this study provides evidence from two cohort studies that interactive rather than independent effect of APOE and sex potentiates early tau deposition in women. Our results have important implications for clinical trials and practice, which should take into consideration both APOEε4 carriage status and sex for identifying individuals with the highest probability of developing tau accumulation and clinical progression.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".