The influence of APOE status on rate of cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Apolipoprotein (APOE) ɛ4 positivity and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) both increase risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) development. However, few studies have examined the relationship between SCD and APOE status, especially using longitudinal data. The current study examined whether APOE is associated with the rate of cognitive change in SCD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: A sample of 3494 older adults (1990 normal controls, NC, 775 SCD, and 729 MCI) with a mean follow-up of 9.09 years were included from the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center Research Sharing Hub. Linear mixed effects models examined the relationship between APOE status and cognitive change in older adults with SCD normal controls, and people with MCI. RESULTS: The presence of at least one ɛ2 allele in SCD and MCI results in cognitive change rates similar to a NC with the ɛ3ɛ3 genotype. Older adult SCD-ɛ4 individuals exhibited increased rate of cognitive decline compared to all groups, including NC-ɛ4 and MCI-ɛ4. CONCLUSION: People with SCD with at least one ɛ4 allele experience increased rates of cognitive decline compared to cognitively healthy older adults and people with MCI. These findings have important implications for treatments and interventions and can improve future research and clinical trials by targeting people in the preclinical AD phase (i.e., SCD) who also possess at least one APOE ɛ4 allele.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".