MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380883797 · doi:10.1002/alz.059666

MBI‐apathy, ApoEɛ2, and risk for Alzheimer disease dementia

2023· article· en· W4380883797 on OpenAlexaff
Daniella Vellone, Maryam Ghahremani, Zahinoor Ismail

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApathyDementiaApolipoprotein EPsychiatryPsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseRisk factorMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineGerontologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Apathy, characterized by decreased interest, initiative, and emotional reactivity, is amongst the most common neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. However, apathy can emerge before dementia and constitutes a domain of mild behavioral impairment (MBI), an at‐risk state for incident cognitive decline and dementia. MBI‐apathy is the de novo emergence of persistent apathy in dementia‐free older adults and may be a driving factor in dementia risk conferred by MBI. Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) is a risk marker for Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia. Compared to ApoEɛ3 homozygotes, ApoEɛ2 carriers are 40% less likely to develop AD while ApoEɛ4 carriers are 3.2‐14.9 times more likely. We investigated the association between MBI‐apathy, ApoE, and incident dementia. We hypothesized that ɛ2 would have protective effects for MBI‐apathy associated risk, compared to ɛ3 and ɛ4. Method Dementia‐free participants in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Centre were stratified as MBI‐apathy and no‐NPS until dementia diagnosis, based on Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire scores at 2 consecutive visits. ApoE genotypes were categorized by ɛ2 (ɛ2/ɛ2, ɛ2/ɛ3), ɛ3 (ɛ3/ɛ3), and ɛ4 (ɛ4/ɛ3, ɛ4/ɛ4) alleles. Group characteristics were contrasted to determine covariate inclusion in regression modelling. Cox regressions assessed risk of incident dementia and included an interaction term for MBI‐apathy and ApoE allele. Results Of the 3,644 participants (3,022 Normal‐Cognition); 314 had MBI‐apathy (Table 1). Significant main effects were found for MBI‐apathy and incident dementia (HR:2.51, 95% CI:1.99‐3.17, p<0.001) as well as interaction effects with ApoE. In MBI‐apathy (ɛ3 as reference), the ɛ2 group had a 60% lower dementia risk (adjusted HR:0.40, 95% CI:0.19‐0.85) while ɛ4 had a 16% higher risk (adjusted HR:1.16, 95% CI:0.80‐1.69) (Figure 1). Of the 125 participants with apathy who progressed to dementia, 80.8% had AD. In the no‐NPS group (ɛ3 as reference), ɛ2 individuals had a 17% lower dementia risk (adjusted HR:0.83, 95% CI:0.52‐1.33) while ɛ4 individuals had a 177% higher risk (adjusted HR:2.77, 95% CI:2.13‐3.59) (Figure 2). Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the relationship between MBI‐apathy and ApoE status in determining dementia risk. Results suggest that ApoE modifies the association between MBI‐apathy and incident dementia with the ɛ2 allele acting as a protective factor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→