MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399354474 · doi:10.1186/s13293-024-00620-4

Low testosterone levels relate to poorer cognitive function in women in an APOE-ε4-dependant manner

2024· article· en· W4399354474 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Melanie A Dratva, Sarah J. Banks, Matthew S. Panizzon, Douglas Galasko, Erin E. Sundermann

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Sex Differences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsTestosterone (patch)Apolipoprotein ECognitionAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMedicineInternal medicineDementiaEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performancePsychologyClinical psychologyPhysiologyEndocrinologyDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Past research suggests that low testosterone levels relate to poorer cognitive function and higher Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk; however, these findings are inconsistent and are mostly derived from male samples, despite similar age-related testosterone decline in females. Both animal and human studies demonstrate that testosterone's effects on brain health may be moderated by apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE-ε4) carrier status, which may explain some previous inconsistencies. We examined how testosterone relates to cognitive function in older women versus men across healthy aging and the AD continuum and the moderating role of APOE-ε4 genotype. METHODS: Five hundred and sixty one participants aged 55-90 (155 cognitively normal (CN), 294 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 112 AD dementia) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), who had baseline cognitive and plasma testosterone data, as measured by the Rules Based Medicine Human DiscoveryMAP Panel were included. There were 213 females and 348 males (self-reported sex assigned at birth), and 52% of the overall sample were APOE-ε4 carriers. We tested the relationship of plasma testosterone levels and its interaction with APOE-ε4 status on clinical diagnostic group (CN vs. MCI vs. AD), global, and domain-specific cognitive performance using ANOVAs and linear regression models in sex-stratified samples. Cognitive domains included verbal memory, executive function, processing speed, and language. RESULTS: We did not observe a significant difference in testosterone levels between clinical diagnostic groups in either sex, regrardless of APOE-ε4 status. Across clinical diagnostic group, we found a significant testosterone by APOE-ε4 interaction in females, such that lower testosterone levels related to worse global cognition, processing speed, and verbal memory in APOE-ε4 carriers only. We did not find that testosterone, nor its interaction with APOE-ε4, related to cognitive outcomes in males. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that low testosterone levels in older female APOE-ε4 carriers across the aging-MCI-AD continuum may have deleterious, domain-specific effects on cognitive performance. Although future studies including additional sex hormones and longitudinal cognitive trajectories are needed, our results highlight the importance of including both sexes and considering APOE-ε4 carrier status when examining testosterone's role in cognitive health.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Sex DifferencesSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207