MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116938192 · doi:10.1002/alz70855_099073

Sex differences in APP processing in human brains

2025· article· en· W7116938192 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Bellaflor, Ahmad Mohammad, Rebecca E. K. MacPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSex characteristicsDiseaseHuman FemalesAffect (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Amyloidogenic processing of the transmembrane protein amyloid precursor protein (APP), by BACE1, results in the production of Aβ peptides which are a pathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD). AD is a biological female dominated disorder, with postmenopausal females accounting for ∼72% of late onset Alzheimer's cases. Due to this sex discrepancy, there has been an increased interest in investigating sex differences in AD pathology. However, studies have not made direct comparisons between APP processing in biological males and females. Animal research has examined sex differences between MALE, SHAM, and OVX models and found cognitive decline in OVX models and higher BACE1 content and activity. The purpose of this study was to examine sex differences in brain markers associated with APP processing in AD and non-diseased male and female human brains. METHOD: Human Brain samples were acquired from the Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank (DBCBB). The collection included hippocampal samples from 9 non-diseased individuals of both sexes, as well as 19 hippocampal samples from individuals with AD, comprising 9 females and 10 males. Western blots for APP, APP processing markers (sAPPα, sAPPβ, BACE1, ADAM10), and APP processing mediators (proBDNF, matBDNF) were analyzed, along with activity assays for BACE1 and ADAM10. RESULT: The AD samples had lower ADAM10 content (p = 0.017), and a lower sAPPα: sAPPβ ratio compared to the non-diseased samples (p = 0.008). AD samples also had higher BACE1 activity (p = 0.036) and proBDNF content (p = 0.022) compared to the non-diseased samples. The non-diseased female samples had higher matBDNF in comparison to the AD females (p = 0.058). There were no differences in protein content or activity between the sexes. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates differences in APP processing markers between AD and non-diseased samples. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, no significant sex differences were observed in APP processing markers or enzyme activities between males and females in either the AD or non-diseased groups. These findings contribute to our understanding of AD pathology and underscore the complexity of sex-based differences in the disease, suggesting the need for further research to explore the mechanisms underlying AD prevalence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→