Brazilian older adults with Alzheimer’s Disease Exhibit Telomere Shortening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Brazilian population has been experiencing an increase in the number of older adults, with a simultaneous rise in the incidence of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Telomeres are structures located at the ends of chromosomes that maintain the structural integrity of the chromosome. There is a shortage of studies correlating telomeres and cognition. This study aimed to assess the relationship between telomere length and different cognitive profiles. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Outpatient Reference Center for Older Adults at the University Hospital of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. The sample consisted of older adults without cognitive impairment (control group), those with MCI, and those with AD`s dementia (ADD). Participants underwent geriatric and neuropsychological evaluation for clinical and cognitive assessment. DNA analysis from peripheral blood samples was performed using a saline method. Telomere relative length was analyzed using RT-PCR. Multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the association between telomere relative length and the sample. RESULT: The sample comprised 90 participants, with 30 individuals in each group (control, MCI, and AD). The majority of the sample comprised women (68.9%), with an average education of 4.56 ± 3.70 years. The percentage of women was higher in all groups. The ADD group had a higher average age compared to the others, with a mean age of 79.5 (75.0-83.5), p = 0.0060. Education was lower in the MCI group compared to the control group (25, p = 0.001). A shorter telomere length was observed in the ADD group (225.51), followed by the control group (428.27) and the MCI group (448.05) (p <0.001). The variable dyslipidemia was significantly associated with telomere length (p = 0.034). Other variables did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: It was observed that the relative telomere length was associated with the ADD, with a smaller telomere relative length in this group compared to the others, and an association with dyslipidemia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".