MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210400624 · doi:10.1002/alz.052291

Sex differences in brain aging among adults with APOE4 genetic risk and family history of Alzheimer’s disease

2021· article· en· W4210400624 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sivaniya Subramaniapillai, Sricharana Rajagopal, Jamie Snytte, Ross Otto, Gillian Einstein, Natasha Rajah

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas CollegeMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortFamily historyMedicineApolipoprotein EDemographyGerontologyDiseaseAnalysis of varianceCohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Determining the effect of AD risk factors on brain aging in healthy middle‐aged and older women, compared to men, is critical for understanding whether there are sex differences in the pathways towards AD in cognitively intact, at risk adults. The goal of this study was to use an elastic net regression model to predict the effect of family history of AD [+FH] and the APOE‐e4 [+APOE4] genotype on brain age gap (BAG) in cognitively normal women and men. Method This cross‐sectional study used T1‐weighted structural MRIs from the Dallas Lifespan Brain Study (DLBS), South Asian Lifespan Dataset (SALD), Montreal Memory and Aging Lifespan Study (MMALS), and Pre‐symptomatic Evaluation of Experimental or Novel Treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease (PREVENT‐AD) cohorts. Data were collected from multiple sites: Dallas, USA (DLBS); Chonqing, China (SALD); Montreal, Canada (MMALS and PREVENT‐AD). 1067 cognitively normal adults (18‐89 years; 697 [65%] women) were randomly split into train and test sets. In the train set: 596 unknown FH (uFH) participants (mean [SD] age = 47.39 [18.46] years, 63% women); in the test set: 251 uFH (47.50 [19.15] years, 64% women) and 220 +FH participants (61.53 [6.04] years, 72% women). BAG, was measured as the difference between Predicted Age, estimated by the elastic net model, and Chronological Age. Result The age prediction model applied to the test set revealed greater BAG deviations in the +FH cohort compared to the uFH cohort (31% vs. 74% of the age variance, respectively; MAE = 8.22 years). A significant interaction was observed between FH status and Sex: +FH women had more advanced brain aging compared to +FH men. APOE genotype interacted with Sex in the +FH group: +APOE4 women had more positive BAG than +APOE4 men. In a sub‐cohort of individuals with AD risk factors, we observed sex differences in the role of modifiable factors of Body Mass Index and physical activity in preserving brain aging. Conclusion AD risk factors have more negative consequences to brain aging in cognitively normal women with family history than men with family history, but that modifiable factors can interact with genetic factors to potentially protect against brain aging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→