Brain change trajectories in healthy adults correlate with Alzheimer’s related genetic variation and memory decline across life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout adulthood and ageing our brains undergo structural loss in an average pattern resembling faster atrophy in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using a longitudinal adult lifespan sample (aged 30-89; 2-7 timepoints) and four polygenic scores for AD, we show that change in AD-sensitive brain features correlates with genetic AD-risk and memory decline in healthy adults. We first show genetic risk links with more brain loss than expected for age in early Braak regions, and find this extends beyond APOE genotype. Next, we run machine learning on AD-control data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative using brain change trajectories conditioned on age, to identify AD-sensitive features and model their change in healthy adults. Genetic AD-risk linked with multivariate change across many AD-sensitive features, and we show most individuals over age ~50 are on an accelerated trajectory of brain loss in AD-sensitive regions. Finally, high genetic risk adults with elevated brain change showed more memory decline through adulthood, compared to high genetic risk adults with less brain change. Our findings suggest quantitative AD risk factors are detectable in healthy individuals, via a shared pattern of ageing- and AD-related neurodegeneration that occurs along a continuum and tracks memory decline through adulthood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".