MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380884231 · doi:10.1002/alz.066947

Sleep apnea and cognition in older APOE4 carriers and non‐carriers

2023· article· en· W4380884231 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colt M. Halter, John L. Woodard

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbal fluency testPsychologyCognitionNeuropsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceAudiologyRecallDementiaDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyDiseasePsychiatryCognitive psychologyMedicineCognitive impairmentInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Sleep apnea (SA) is common in late life and has received much attention as a possible risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, cross‐sectional findings suggest little, if any, relationship between SA and impaired cognition in Apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE4) allele carriers and non‐carriers. Preclinical AD detection is essential, and the relationship between SA, APOE4, and cognitive impairment merits further analysis in a large sample. Therefore, we investigated whether SA and APOE4 carrier status were related to neuropsychological functioning using the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) database. We predicted an interaction between SA and APOE4 carrier status, such that APOE4 carriers with SA would show the most significant impairment in cognition. Method Participants were at least 65 years of age with normal cognitive status. Sample sizes ranged from 1902 to 1945, depending on available neuropsychological data. SA presence or absence was clinician‐determined. Participants completed nine cognitive measures, including semantic memory (verbal category fluency), executive functioning (verbal letter fluency), visual scanning and executive functioning (Trails A and Trails B), global cognitive functioning (total Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]), and memory (MoCA–delayed recall and Benson Complex Figure Copy – delayed). We compared non‐carriers (ε3/ε3) and heterozygous carriers (ε3/ε4) using three‐way ANOVAs and ANCOVAs, while considering sex and age. Result There were no main or interaction effects of SA, carrier status, or sex on participant age (p>.05). Therefore, age was used as a covariate in three‐way ANCOVAs to enhance the power to detect a significant effect if present. Contrary to our hypotheses, there were no main or interaction effects involving SA (p>.05) with sex or carrier status. An APOE4 main effect was observed only for MoCA total and delayed recall scores. Conclusion Past cross‐sectional studies report a weak or null relationship between SA and cognitive performance. We found no main or interaction effects involving SA with sex or APOE4 carrier status on neuropsychological functioning in a large sample of older adults. Our large sample size helps provide more evidence for these null relationships and is consistent with other large‐sample studies.

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)0.001
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 topicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research→French-language works237,207→