Predicting Neurodegenerative Diseases: Unveiling the Interplay of Genetics and Social Determinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) using polygenic risk scores (PRS) for late‐onset forms holds promise, but its accuracy might be influenced by social determinants of health (SDOH). This study explores how considering SDOH alongside genes can improve prediction, focusing on potential differences for each disease. Methods Employing logistic regression in 677 individuals (287 AD, 102 FTD, and 288 controls) aged 40‐80 from the ReDLat study across six Latin American countries, we investigated the potential for SDOH to modify the association between PRS and susceptibility to AD and FTD. Analyses were adjusted for a probabilistic score derived from models comparing disease groups to controls with SDOH data (education, occupation, economic stability, healthcare access and quality, and social context) and APOE ε4 carrier status to account for confounding effects. Results Although univariate association tests revealed robust links between PRS and both diseases, adjusted models presented a nuanced picture. In AD, the SDOH score and APOE ε4 carrier status significantly attenuated the PRS effect (p=0.14), suggesting these factors modify genetic risk. In FTD, however, SDOH did not influence the PRS contribution. These findings highlight the potentially distinct roles of social factors in different neurodegenerative pathways. Conclusion The significant modification of PRS effects in AD by SDOH and APOE ε4 underscores the need for comprehensive approaches in future research and interventions in Latin America. Conversely, the unaltered PRS contribution in FTD emphasizes distinct intricacies in gene‐environment interactions. These findings necessitate considering both realms in future efforts, paving the way for targeted strategies in AD and FTD prevention and treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".