Associations of Apolipoprotein ε4 Genotypes with Motor and Nonmotor Symptoms in Parkinson's Disease: A Cross‐Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background The apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) ε4 allele has been associated with cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease (PD), but little is known about its relationship with motor and other nonmotor symptoms and whether APOE ε4 retains an influence on cognition when other factors are considered. Objective To investigate the impact of APOE ε4 on motor/nonmotor symptoms and its relationship with other factors affecting cognition in individuals with PD. Methods We analyzed data from 7616 individuals, comparing motor/nonmotor symptoms in different APOE genotypes using binary logistic regression. Multivariate logistic regression examined factors associated with cognitive impairments, including APOE ε4, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) score, Non‐motor Symptom Questionnaire (NMS) score, Movement Disorder Society–Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS‐UPDRS) Part II score, and physical activity level. Results APOE ε4 heterozygosity was modestly associated with lower cognitive scores (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87–0.99), whereas no significant association was found for any other nonmotor and motor symptoms. However, in multivariate analysis, cognitive impairment was associated with higher GDS (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.23–1.34), NMS (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.19–1.25), and MDS‐UPDRS Part II (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06–1.09) scores, whereas physical activity was negatively associated (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98–0.99). APOE ε4 was no longer significant after adjusting for these factors. Conclusions There is a link between cognition and APOE ε4 in patients with PD; however, when considering multiple factors, APOE ε4 plays a subordinate role. Other factors, such as depression, physical activity, and other nonmotor symptoms, demonstrate a stronger influence on cognitive impairment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".