Self‐reported history of estrogen hormone therapy differentiates rates of amyloid accumulation (PiB‐PET) relative to males: Findings from the Harvard Aging Brain Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS) findings suggest that hormone therapy increases risk of dementia. Conversely, evidence from the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study (KEEPS) implicates estrogen hormone therapy (HT) as protective against ß‐amyloid (Aß) burden. We sought to explore if self‐reported HT use is associated with rates of Aß accumulation in an observational sample of clinically‐unimpaired older adults. Method 134 participants (Age=73yrs±5.8) underwent at least three timepoints of Pittsburgh compound‐B (PiB)‐PET scans over an average of 9.7 years. Longitudinal PiB‐PET was examined as aggregate neocortical DVR (composite reference region: whole cerebellum + eroded white matter). Concurrent with baseline PiB‐PET, female participants self‐reported if they ever took HT. Participants were thus identified as: females who never used HT (HT‐:n=36), females who have ever taken HT to any extent (HT+:n=42), and males (M:n=56). We examined the relationship between these three groups and longitudinal PiB‐PET using linear mixed models, adjusting for baseline age, and with random slopes and intercepts. Post‐hoc analyses adjusted for APOEε4 status and examined interactions between HT and baseline PiB‐PET on change in PiB‐PET from baseline. Result While we found no significant sex (male/female) difference in PiB‐PET accumulation (t=1.5,p>0.05,Fig 1A), we observed significant HT group differences with HT‐ exhibiting approximately half the PiB‐PET rate of change than M (t=2.3,p=0.02) and HT+ (t=1.8,p=0.07; Fig 1B). There was no significant slope difference between M and HT+ (t=0.32,p=0.75). These differences survived after covarying for APOEε4. A three‐way interaction with baseline PiB‐PET revealed a greater slope difference between HT‐ and M (t=2.1,p=0.04) in those with higher baseline PiB‐PET relative to lower baseline PiB‐PET (Fig 2). Conclusion HT‐ showed significantly slower rates of Aß accumulation than males and a trend‐level slower rate compared to HT+; these differences appear heightened with greater baseline Aß burden. With similar ages across HT groups (p=0.20), these differences did not appear to be a function of chronological age. It remains unclear whether the introduction of estrogen, a mediating commonality, or collider bias is driving these results. Our findings, in conjunction with other studies, suggest the relationship between HT and Aß is complicated and necessitates examination of HT type and duration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".