MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390199411 · doi:10.1002/alz.077813

Differences in pathology, brain atrophy, and WMHs across APOE subtypes

2023· article· en· W4390199411 on OpenAlexaff
Cassandra Morrison, Mahsa Dadar, Farooq Kamal, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApolipoprotein EAtrophyEntorhinal cortexInternal medicineHyperintensityPathologyMedicineAmyloid (mycology)EndocrinologyCardiologyPsychologyHippocampal formationDiseaseMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The apolipoprotein (APOE) e4 allele is a known risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), while the e2 allele is thought to be protective. As few studies have examined the relationship between brain pathologies, atrophy, and white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) and APOE status in those with the e2e4 genotype, we do so here. Methods We analyzed Alzheimer’s Disease Neuro Imaging participants that had APOE genotyping and at least one of the following metrics: regional WMH load (obtained using Dadar 2018); ventricle size, hippocampal (HC) and entorhinal cortex (EC) volume, amyloid level (i.e., AV‐45), and phosphorylated tau (pTau), all downloaded from LONI. Participants were divided into one of four APOE allele profiles (E4 = e4e4 or e3e4; E2 = e2e2 or e2e3; E3 = e3e3; or E24 = e2e4, Fig.1). Linear mixed effects models examined the relationship between APOE profiles and each pathology while controlling for age, sex, education, and diagnostic status. Results At baseline (Fig.2), E4 exhibited increased pTau (p<.001) compared to E2 and E3 and smaller HC and EC volumes than all other APOE profiles (p<.01). The E24 group exhibited smaller ventricles than E3 and E4 (p<.05). The E2 group exhibited less amyloid than all other APOE profiles (p<.001), while E4 and E24 had more amyloid compared to E3 (p<.001). Longitudinally (Fig.3), ventricular enlargement and HC atrophy significantly differed between all profiles (p<.001). Furthermore, E2 was observed to have slower WMH accumulation compared to all other profiles (p<.001), while E4 exhibited faster accumulation compared to E3 (p<.001). The E4 group exhibited increased EC atrophy compared to E3 and E2 (p<.001), and E24 exhibited more atrophy than E2 (p = .015). Amyloid increased faster in the E4 group compared to E3 and E2 (p<.001), while E2 amyloid progressed slower than E3 (p = .005). Conclusions APOE E4 positivity is associated with increased baseline and greater accumulation of pathologies and rates of neurodegeneration. APOE E2 positivity is associated with reduced pathology burden (i.e., WMH and amyloid) and less neurodegeneration as measured by ventricle size and hippocampal and entorhinal cortex volume over time. APOE E2E4 is similar to E4 (i.e., increased neurodegeneration and pathology burden) but with a slightly slower rate of change.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→