Sex Modifies the Associations of APOE ɛ4 with Neuropsychiatric Symptom Burden in Both At-Risk and Clinical Cohorts of Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent work suggests that APOEɛ4/4 females with Alzheimer's disease (AD) are more susceptible to developing neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). OBJECTIVE: To examine the interaction of sex and APOEɛ4 status on NPS burden using two independent cohorts: 1) patients at risk for AD with mild cognitive impairment and/or major depressive disorder (n = 252) and 2) patients with probable AD (n = 7,261). METHODS: Regression models examined the interactive effects of sex and APOEɛ4 on the number of NPS experienced and NPS Severity. APOEɛ3/4 and APOEɛ4/4 were pooled in the at-risk cohort due to the sample size. RESULTS: In the at-risk cohort, there was a significant sex*APOEɛ4 interaction (p = 0.007) such that the association of APOEɛ4 with NPS was greater in females than in males (incident rate ratio (IRR) = 2.0). APOEɛ4/4 females had the most NPS (mean = 1.9) and the highest severity scores (mean = 3.5) of any subgroup. In the clinical cohort, APOEɛ4/4 females had significantly more NPS (IRR = 1.1, p = 0.001, mean = 3.1) and higher severity scores (b = 0.31, p = 0.015, mean = 3.7) than APOEɛ3/3 females (meanNPS = 2.9, meanSeverity = 3.3). No association was found in males. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that sex modifies the association of APOEɛ4 on NPS burden. APOEɛ4/4 females may be particularly susceptible to increased NPS burden among individuals with AD and among individuals at risk for AD. Further investigation into the mechanisms behind these associations are needed.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".