<i>APOE</i> ε4–associated heterogeneity of neuroimaging biomarkers across the Alzheimer's disease continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While the role of apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 in Alzheimer's disease (AD) susceptibility has been studied extensively, much less is known about the differences in disease presentation in APOE ε4 carriers versus non-carriers. METHODS: To help elucidate these differences, we performed a broad analysis comparing the regional levels of six different neuroimaging biomarkers in the brains of APOE ε4 carriers versus non-carriers who participated in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). RESULTS: We observed significant APOE ε4-associated heterogeneity in regional amyloid beta deposition, tau accumulation, glucose uptake, brain volume, cerebral blood flow, and white matter hyperintensities within each AD diagnostic group. We also observed important APOE ε4-associated differences in cognitively unimpaired individuals who converted to mild cognitive impairment/AD versus those who did not convert. DISCUSSION: This observed heterogeneity in neuroimaging biomarkers between APOE ε4 carriers versus non-carriers may have important implications regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of AD in different subpopulations. HIGHLIGHTS: An extensive study was performed on the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4-associated heterogeneity in neuroimaging biomarkers from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Robust APOE ε4-associated increases in amyloid beta (Aβ) deposition throughout the brain, in every diagnostic group, were observed. APOE ε4-associated increases in tau pathology, decreases in glucose uptake, and increases in brain atrophy, which expand in regional scope and magnitude with disease progression, were observed. Significant sex- and age-related differences in APOE ε4-associated neuroimaging biomarker heterogeneity, with overall increases in pathological presentation in female APOE ε4 carriers, were observed. Regional differences in Aβ deposition, tau accumulation, glucose uptake, ventricle size, and white matter hyperintensities were observed in cognitively normal participants who converted to mild cognitive impairment/Alzheimer's disease, which may hold potential predictive value.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".