MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400217600 · doi:10.1111/jgs.19043

<i>APOE</i> epsilon variants and composite risk of dementia, disability, and death in the health and retirement study

2024· article· en· W4400217600 on OpenAlexaff
Santiago Clocchiatti‐Tuozzo, Natalia Szejko, Cyprien Rivier, Daniela Renedo, Shufan Huo, Kevin N. Sheth, Thomas M. Gill, Guido J. Falcone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineDementiaProportional hazards modelInterquartile rangeApolipoprotein EHazard ratioHealth and Retirement StudyGerontologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in older adults are increasingly focused on functional outcomes, and the composite outcome of dementia, disability, and death is gaining pivotal importance. Genetic variation, particularly the APOE epsilon(ε) variants, may modify responses to new treatments. Although APOE ε4 is known to influence these outcomes separately, the magnitude of its effect on this composite outcome remains unknown. We tested the hypothesis that APOE ε4 increases, whereas APOE ε2 decreases, the risk of a composite outcome of dementia, disability, and death. METHODS: We evaluated clinical and genomic data from the Health and Retirement Study collected from 1992 to 2020. We used variants rs429358 and rs7412 to determine APOE genotypes, modeled dominantly (carriers/noncarriers). We conducted survival analysis, using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with a composite endpoint of dementia, disability, and death. Our primary analysis evaluated participants with genetic data and no previous dementia or disability. In secondary analyses, we focused on persons aged > = 75 years without heart disease or stroke, a subpopulation increasingly important in clinical trials of older adults. RESULTS: We included 14,527 participants in the primary analysis. Over a median of 18 (Interquartile Range [IQR] 12-24) years, 6711 (46%) participants developed the composite outcome. In Cox analyses, APOE ε4 associated with higher risk (HR:1.15, 95%CI:1.09-1.22) of the composite outcome, whereas APOE ε2 associated with lower risk (HR:0.92, 95%CI:0.86-0.99). In the secondary analysis, we included 3174 participants. Over a median of 7 (IQR 4-11) years, 1326 participants (42%) developed the composite outcome. In Cox analyses, APOE ε4 associated with higher risk (HR:1.25, 95%CI:1.10-1.41) of the composite outcome, whereas APOE ε2 associated with lower risk (HR:0.84, 95%CI:0.71-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: APOE ε variants are linked to the risk of dementia, disability, and death in older adults. By examining these variants in clinical trials, we can better elucidate how they might alter the effectiveness of tested interventions. Importantly, this genetic information could help identify participants who may have greater absolute benefit from such interventions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Same topicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→