Sex differences in associations between <i>APOE ε2</i> and longitudinal cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We examined whether sex modifies the association between APOE ε2 and cognitive decline in two independent samples. METHODS: We used observational data from cognitively unimpaired non-Hispanic White (NHW) and non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults. Linear mixed models examined interactive associations of APOE genotype (ε2 or ε4 carrier vs. ε3/ε3) and sex on cognitive decline in NHW and NHB participants separately. RESULTS: In both Sample 1 (N = 9766) and Sample 2 (N = 915), sex modified the association between APOE ε2 and cognitive decline in NHW participants. Specifically, relative to APOE ε3/ε3, APOE ε2 protected against cognitive decline in men but not women. Among APOE ε2 carriers, men had slower decline than women. Among APOE ε3/ε3 carriers, cognitive trajectories did not differ between sexes. There were no sex-specific associations of APOE ε2 with cognition in NHB participants (N = 2010). DISCUSSION: In NHW adults, APOE ε2 may protect men but not women against cognitive decline. HIGHLIGHTS: We studied sex-specific apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε2 effects on cognitive decline. In non-Hispanic White (NHW) adults, APOE ε2 selectively protects men against decline. Among men, APOE ε2 was more protective than APOE ε3/ε3. In women, APOE ε2 was no more protective than APOE ε3/ε3. Among APOE ε2 carriers, men had slower decline than women. There were no sex-specific APOE ε2 effects in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".