APOE E4 is associated with impaired self-declared cognition but not disease risk or age of onset in Nigerians with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between APOE polymorphisms and Parkinson's disease (PD) in black Africans has not been previously investigated. We evaluated the association between APOE polymorphic variability and self-declared cognition in 1100 Nigerians with PD and 1097 age-matched healthy controls. Cognition in PD was assessed using the single item cognition question (item 1.1) of the MDS-UPDRS. APOE genotype and allele frequencies did not differ between PD and controls (p > 0.05). No allelic or genotypic association was observed between APOE and age at onset of PD. In PD, APOE ε4/ε4 conferred a two-fold risk of cognitive impairment compared to one or no ε4 (HR: 2.09 (95% CI: 1.13-3.89; p = 0.02)), while APOE ε2 was associated with modest protection against cognitive impairment (HR: 0.41 (95% CI 0.19-0.99, p = 0.02)). Of 773 PD with motor phenotype and APOE characterized, tremor-dominant (TD) phenotype predominated significantly in ε2 carriers (87/135, 64.4%) compared to 22.2% in persons with postural instability/gait difficulty (PIGD) (30/135) and 13.3% in indeterminate (ID) (18/135, 13.3%) (p = 0.037). Although the frequency of the TD phenotype was highest in homozygous ε2 carriers (85.7%), the distribution of motor phenotypes across the six genotypes did not differ significantly (p = 0.18). Altogether, our findings support previous studies in other ethnicities, implying a role for APOE ε4 and ε2 as risk and protective factors, respectively, for cognitive impairment in PD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".