Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer’s Disease Is Not Associated with APOE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been found to vary widely between individuals, with numerous factors driving this heterogeneity. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compute a measure of cognitive decline in patients with AD based on clinical information and to utilize this measure to explore the genetic architecture of cognitive decline in AD. METHODS: An in-house cohort of 616 individuals, hereby termed the Cardiff Genetic Resource for AD, as well as a subset of 577 individuals from the publicly available ADNI dataset, that have been assessed at multiple timepoints, were used in this study. Measures of cognitive decline were computed using various mixed effect linear models of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). After an optimal model was selected, a metric of cognitive decline for each individual was estimated as the random slope derived from this model. This metric was subsequently used for testing the association of cognitive decline with apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype. RESULTS: No association was found between the number of APOEɛ2 or ɛ4 alleles and the rate of cognitive decline in either of the datasets examined. CONCLUSION: Further exploration is required to uncover possible genetic variants that affect the rate of decline in patients with 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".