APOE Polymorphism, Obstructive Sleep Apnea, and Cognitive Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with the apolipoprotein E ε4 polymorphic allele (APOE ε4) and with worse cognitive function. However, the influence of APOE ε4 on cognitive function in patients with moderate-to-severe OSA is controversial. The present study evaluated the influence of APOE ε4 polymorphism and cognitive function in sedentary OSA patients with no other major comorbidities. Materials and Methods In total, 55 middle-aged patients underwent conventional nocturnal polysomnography, APOE ε4 polymorphism genotyping, cognitive evaluation (attention, inhibitory control, frontal functions, processing speed, and episodic memory), and they filled out the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Results Overall, 13 patients had no or mild OSA, and 42 had moderate-to-severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 15 events/h of sleep) and APOE ε4 was present in 7.7% and 21.4% of the patients in each group respectively. Among patients with moderate-to-severe OSA, the sleep parameters were similar in the groups of APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers. Compared with patients with no or mild OSA, the cognitive parameters were worse for processing speed (Digit Symbol Test) and attention (Stroop Color Word Test, SCWT-Part 2) among the patients with moderate-to-severe OSA. The difference was present even after the exclusion of APOE ε4 carriers. Among patients with moderate-to-severe OSA, APOE ε4 carriers presented worse episodic memory, evaluated through the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, than APOE ε4 noncarriers. Conclusion Moderate-to-severe OSA is associated with poor cognitive function that is further impaired by the presence of APOE ε4 polymorphism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".