MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390193431 · doi:10.1002/alz.073459

Risk of Mild Behavioral Impairment: the role of gender and APOE allele carrier status

2023· article· en· W4390193431 on OpenAlexaff
Moyra E. Mortby, Zahinoor Ismail, Kim M. Kiely, Corinne E. Fischer, Kaarin J. Anstey

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApolipoprotein EDementiaLogistic regressionBinomial regressionAllelePsychologyInternal medicineDemographyGerontologyDiseaseMedicineClinical psychologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Gender differences in dementia and dementia‐related neuropsychiatric symptoms are well described. Similarly, the Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele is a well‐known predictor of Alzheimer’s disease. However, their impact on the clinical manifestation of Mild Behavioral Impairment (MBI) remains unclear. Using data from the Australian population‐based PATH Through Life Study we explored the associations between gender and APOE ε4 carrier status with MBI. We hypothesized that MBI likelihood would be greater in males and ε4 carriers. Method 1316 dementia‐free participants (48% female; aged 72‐79) were included. Gender was self‐reported (female/male). Participants were classified as APOE ε4+ if they carried at least one ε4 allele (APOE ε4/ε4, ε2/ε4, ε3/ε4). MBI was approximated using a previously published transformation algorithm, which utilizes items from the Neuropsychiatric Inventory assessed at a single study visit. Binomial logistic regression was used to examine the role of gender and APOE ε4 carrier status, and their interaction, on predicting MBI status, while controlling for self‐reported years of education. Result Of the 1316 participants, 339 (25.8%) were APOE ε4+ and 445 (34%) had MBI symptoms. A higher proportion of APOE ε4+ carriers (χ2 (1) = 5.99, p = .014) and men (χ2 (1) = 4.59, p = .032) were in the MBI group compared to the non‐MBI group. Binomial logistic regression showed APOE ε4 carrier status (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.063‐2.344) and male gender (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.093‐1.925) were associated with a greater likelihood of MBI. Male gender was also associated with a 2‐fold greater likelihood of having symptoms of the Decreased Motivation (OR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.13‐3.86) and Impulse Dyscontrol (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.54‐3.03) domains. No interaction effects were found between gender and APOE ε4 carrier status for MBI or any of its domains. Conclusion The current study found that in dementia‐free older adults both male gender and APOE ε4+ status increased the risk of having MBI. However, no cumulative/interaction effect between gender and APOE ε4 carrier status was found, suggesting that being both male and APOE ε4+ does not further increase the risk of MBI. These results provide novel and valuable insight into the connection between gender, APOE ε4 carrier status and MBI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.291 · 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→