GENETIC RISK, MODIFIABLE FACTORS, AND COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE IN MIDDLE- AND OLDER-AGED CANADIANS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Whether the apolipoprotein E (APOE) e4 allele interacts with modifiable factors to predict cognitive performance is unclear. This study examined 26,448 participants (45 to 86 years of age at baseline) in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging who had their blood genotyped for the APOE e4 allele, of whom 6,305 (24%) were e4 carriers. Cognitive outcomes were Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-minute delayed recall, Mental Alterations Test, and Animal Fluency Test, which were collected at baseline (December 2011 to July 2015), follow-up 1 (median 2.9 years after baseline), and follow-up 2 (median 5.8 years after baseline). We examined interactions between time from baseline, APOE e4 status and the following exposures: self-reported physical activity and a composite risk score comprised of sedentary behavior, smoking, depressive symptoms, social isolation, whole blood hemoglobin A1c fraction, and percent body fat. Models were adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, study language (French/English), residential setting (urban/rural), and educational attainment. Across cognitive outcomes, an age by APOE e4 interaction was observed (p values ranging from <.001 to.01), such that the difference in cognitive performance between carriers and non-carriers increased as participant age increased. Although physical activity and composite risk were associated with cognitive performance (all p values <.01), there was not convincing evidence that these associations varied by e4 carrier status after correcting for multiple comparisons. Together, these findings confirm that APOE e4 carriers show greater reductions in cognitive performance but do not suggest that e4 status alters associations between modifiable risk and cognitive decline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".