Alzheimer's disease heterogeneity explained by polygenic risk scores derived from brain transcriptomic profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is heterogeneous, both clinically and neuropathologically. We investigated whether polygenic risk scores (PRSs) integrated with transcriptome profiles from AD brains can explain AD clinical heterogeneity. METHODS: We conducted co-expression network analysis and identified gene sets (modules) that were preserved in three AD transcriptome datasets and associated with AD-related neuropathological traits including neuritic plaques (NPs) and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). We computed the module-based PRSs (mbPRSs) for each module and tested associations with mbPRSs for cognitive test scores, cognitively defined AD subgroups, and brain imaging data. RESULTS: Of the modules significantly associated with NPs and/or NFTs, the mbPRSs from two modules (M6 and M9) showed distinct associations with language and visuospatial functioning, respectively. They matched clinical subtypes and brain atrophy at specific regions. DISCUSSION: Our findings demonstrate that polygenic profiling based on co-expressed gene sets can explain heterogeneity in AD patients, enabling genetically informed patient stratification and precision medicine in AD. HIGHLIGHTS: Co-expression gene-network analysis in Alzheimer's disease (AD) brains identified gene sets (modules) associated with AD heterogeneity. AD-associated modules were selected when genes in each module were enriched for neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. Polygenic risk scores from two selected modules were linked to the matching cognitively defined AD subgroups (language and visuospatial subgroups). Polygenic risk scores from the two modules were associated with cognitive performance in language and visuospatial domains and the associations were confirmed in regional-specific brain atrophy data.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".