APOE ε4 predicts amyloid PET positive in amnesic subjective cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) has been considered as at risk state to progress to mild cognitive impairment(MCI) or Alzheimer's disease(AD). Apolipoprotein E e4 allele is a well‐known genetic risk for rapid deterioration of cognitive and dementia development. We investigated the effect of APOE ε4 on the brain amyloid pathology and other clinical features in the elderly with SCD. Method One hundred and nineteen elderly subjects, 60 or older, complaining of persistent cognitive decline, with 7% to 50% of the memory test score and over 7% of the other tests score were included through neuropsychological tests(Seoul neuropsychological battery, SNSB). Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumetry, visual and standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) analysis of 18F‐Florbetaben brain amyloid‐beta Positron Emission Tomography (PET) were performed. Demographics, physical data, social and physiological functions were also obtained. Result Of the 119 SCD subjects, 26 (21.8%) had APOE ε4 and 26 (21.8%) had amyloid PET positive. Age was not different between two groups (70.9 V.S. 70.9, p=0.880). Test Z‐score was only marginally lower in Digit span test‐forward (p=0.053) in SCD with APOE ε4. Amyloid PET SUVR value was higher in SCD with APOE ε4 (1.2±0.2 V.S. 1.5±0.3, p=0.001). Regional brain volume including hippocampus and entorhinal cortex were not different in SPM based volumetric ananlysis. Korean_Everyday Cognition subscores, depression scores measured with Patient Health Questionnaire 9, sleep quality measured with Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score, Body Mass Index, and gait speed were not different between two groups. Conclusion With the baseline data, APOE ε4 was associated with decreased attention and higher brain amyloid accumulation in amnestic SCD. Longitudinal data will be needed to clarify whether APOE ε4 is associated with progression of cognitive dysfunction in SCD. This study was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, HI18C0530.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".