Towards cascading genetic risk in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alzheimer’s disease typically progresses in stages, which have been defined by the presence of disease-specific biomarkers: Amyloid (A), Tau (T) and neurodegeneration (N). This progression of biomarkers has been condensed into the ATN framework, where each of the biomarkers can be either positive (+) or negative (-). Over the past decades genome wide association studies have implicated about 90 different loci involved with the development of late onset Alzheimer’s disease. Here we investigate whether genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease contributes equally to the progression in different disease stages or whether it exhibits a stage-dependent effect. Amyloid (A) and tau (T) status was defined using a combination of available PET and CSF biomarkers in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort. In 312 participants with biomarker-confirmed A-T- status, we employed Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the contribution of APOE and polygenic risk scores (beyond APOE ) to convert to A+T- status (65 conversions). Furthermore, we repeated the analysis in 290 participants with A+T- status and investigated the genetic contribution to conversion to A+T+ (45 conversions). Both survival analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and years of education. For progression from A-T- to A+T-, APOE-e4 burden showed significant effect (HR=2.88; 95% CI: 1.70-4.89; P<0.001), while polygenic risk did not (HR=1.09; 95% CI: 0.84-1.42; P=0.53). Conversely, for the transition from A+T- to A+T+, the APOE-e4 burden contribution was reduced (HR=1.62 95% CI: 1.05-2.51; P=0.031), while the polygenic risk showed an increased contribution (HR=1.73; 95% CI:1.27-2.36; P<0.001). The marginal APOE effect was driven by e4 homozygotes (HR=2.58; 95% CI: 1.05-6.35; P=0.039) as opposed to e4 heterozygotes (HR=1.74; 95% CI: 0.87-3.49; P=0.12). The genetic risk for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease unfolds in a disease stage-dependent fashion. A better understanding of the interplay between disease stage and genetic risk can lead to a more mechanistic understanding of transition between ATN stages, a better understanding of the molecular processes leading to Alzheimer’s disease as well as opening therapeutic windows for targeted interventions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".