Polygenic Scores of Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Genes Add Only Modestly to <i>APOE</i> in Explaining Variation in Amyloid PET Burden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brain accumulation of amyloid-β is a hallmark event in Alzheimer's disease (AD) whose underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. Case-control genome-wide association studies have implicated numerous genetic variants in risk of clinically diagnosed AD dementia. OBJECTIVE: To test for associations between case-control AD risk variants and amyloid PET burden in older adults, and to assess whether a polygenic measure encompassing these factors would account for a large proportion of the unexplained variance in amyloid PET levels in the wider population. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Global cortical amyloid PET burden was the primary outcome. The 38 gene variants from Wightman et al. (2021) were analyzed as predictors, with PRSice-2 used to assess the collective phenotypic variance explained. RESULTS: Known AD risk variants in APOE, PICALM, CR1, and CLU were associated with amyloid PET levels. In aggregate, the AD risk variants were strongly associated with amyloid PET levels in the MCSA (p = 1.51×10-50) and ADNI (p = 3.21×10-64). However, in both cohorts the non-APOE variants uniquely contributed only modestly (MCSA = 2.1%, ADNI = 4.4%) to explaining variation in amyloid PET levels. CONCLUSION: Additional case-control AD risk variants added only modestly to APOE in accounting for individual variation in amyloid PET burden, results which were consistent across independent cohorts with distinct recruitment strategies and subject characteristics. Our findings suggest that advancing precision medicine for dementia may require integration of strategies complementing case-control approaches, including biomarker-specific genetic associations, gene-by-environment interactions, and markers of disease progression and heterogeneity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".