MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402964797 · doi:10.3390/bs14100876

Examining the Role of Neuroticism Polygenic Risk in Late Life Cognitive Change: A UK Biobank Study

2024· article· en· W4402964797 on OpenAlexafffund
Niki Akbarian, Mahbod Ebrahimi, Fernanda C. Dos Santos, Sara Sadat Aghabozorg Afjeh, Mohamed Abdelhack, Marcos Sanches, Andreea O. Diaconescu, Tarek K. Rajji, Daniel Felsky, Clement C. Zai, James L. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKrembil FoundationUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsNeuroticismBiobankCognitionCognitive declinePsychologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceTraitClinical psychologyBig Five personality traitsPersonalityDemographyMedicinePsychiatryDementiaBioinformaticsInternal medicineDiseaseBiologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive decline is a public health concern affecting about 50 million individuals worldwide. Neuroticism, defined as the trait disposition to experience intense and frequent negative emotions, has been associated with an increased risk of late-life cognitive decline. However, the underlying biological mechanisms of this association remain unknown. This study investigated the relationship between genetic predisposition to neuroticism, computed by polygenic risk score (PRS), and performance in cognitive domains of reasoning, processing speed, visual attention, and memory in individuals over age 60. The sample consisted of UK Biobank participants with genetic and cognitive data available (N = 10,737, 4686 females; mean age = 63.4 ± 2.71). The cognitive domains were assessed at baseline for all participants and seven years later for a subset (N = 645, 262 females; mean age = 62.9 ± 2.44). Neuroticism PRS was not associated cross-sectionally with cognitive measures (p > 0.05). However, the trajectory of change for processing speed (β = 0.020; 95% CI = [0.006, 0.035], adjusted p = 0.0148), visual attention (β = −0.077; 95% CI = [−0.0985, −0.0553], adjusted p = 1.412 × 10−11), and memory (β = −0.033; 95% CI = [−0.0535, −0.0131], adjusted p = 0.005) was significantly associated with neuroticism PRS. Specifically, a higher genetic predisposition to neuroticism was associated with less decline in these cognitive domains. This trend persisted after sensitivity analysis using complete cases, although it only remained nominally significant for visual attention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral SciencesSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207