Associations of lifestyle factors with amyloid pathology in persons without dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The association between lifestyle factors and Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology remains incompletely understood. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the association of alcohol consumption, smoking behavior, sleep quality and physical, cognitive, and social activity with cerebral amyloid pathology. Methods For this cross-sectional study, we selected participants from the Amyloid Biomarker Study data pooling initiative. We used generalized estimating equations to assess associations of dichotomized lifestyle measures with amyloid pathology. Results We included 9171 participants with normal cognition (NC) and 2555 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from the Amyloid Biomarker Study. Of participants with NC, 58% were women, 34% were APOE ε4 carrier, and 27% had amyloid pathology. Of participants with MCI, 48% were women, 47% were APOE ε4 carrier, and 57% had amyloid pathology. In NC, cognitively active participants were less likely to have amyloid pathology (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.66–0.89, p < 0.001). In MCI, participants who had ever smoked or had sleep problems were less likely to have amyloid pathology (OR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.73–0.99, p = 0.029; OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.45–0.86, p = 0.004). Conclusions In NC, cognitive activity was associated with a lower frequency of amyloid pathology. In MCI, favorable lifestyle behaviors were not associated with a lower frequency of amyloid pathology. The results of the current study contribute to the broader evidence base on lifestyle and AD by further characterizing the role of lifestyle behaviors in AD pathology across different clinical stages.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".