Genetics impact risk of Alzheimer’s disease through mechanisms modulating structural brain morphology in late life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related neuropathological changes can occur decades before clinical symptoms. We aimed to investigate whether neurodevelopment and/or neurodegeneration affects the risk of AD, through reducing structural brain reserve and/or increasing brain atrophy, respectively. METHODS: We used bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomisation to estimate the effects between genetic liability to AD and global and regional cortical thickness, estimated total intracranial volume, volume of subcortical structures and total white matter in 37 680 participants aged 8-81 years across 5 independent cohorts (Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development, Generation R, IMAGEN, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children and UK Biobank). We also examined the effects of global and regional cortical thickness and subcortical volumes from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Consortium on AD risk in up to 37 741 participants. RESULTS: Our findings show that AD risk alleles have an age-dependent effect on a range of cortical and subcortical brain measures that starts in mid-life, in non-clinical populations. Evidence for such effects across childhood and young adulthood is weak. Some of the identified structures are not typically implicated in AD, such as those in the striatum (eg, thalamus), with consistent effects from childhood to late adulthood. There was little evidence to suggest brain morphology alters AD risk. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic liability to AD is likely to affect risk of AD primarily through mechanisms affecting indicators of brain morphology in later life, rather than structural brain reserve. Future studies with repeated measures are required for a better understanding and certainty of the mechanisms at play.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".