MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116974442 · doi:10.1002/alz70860_103779

Walking to Protect Against Cognitive Decline: The Role of APOE Genotype, Sex, and Race

2025· article· en· W7116974442 on OpenAlexaff
Joel S. Burma, John R. Best, Caterina Rosano, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose, Cindy K. Barha

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionRace (biology)Physical activityIntersection (aeronautics)Apolipoprotein ECognitive declineCognitive aging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele is a well-established genetic risk factor for cognitive decline and late-onset Alzheimer's disease with stronger effects in females, while the ε2 allele may offer protective effects. Physical activity is known to mitigate cognitive decline; whether the degree of benefit differs by APOE genotype, sex, and race remains unknown. METHODS: Analyses utilized data from 2,984 participants in the Health, Aging, and Body Composition cohort, comprising community-dwelling black and white older adults followed for 10 years. Cognitive performance was assessed longitudinally using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) for executive functions/processing speed and the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) for global cognition. APOE genotypes were categorized into ε2, ε3, and ε4 groups. Physical activity was quantified using self-reported annual walking time. Linear models and latent growth curve modeling examined the interactions between APOE genotype, sex, race, and walking on cognitive trajectories with adjustments for study location, health score, age, education, and body mass index. RESULTS: APOE ε4 carriers demonstrated steeper declines in both DSST and 3MS scores compared to ε3 carriers, irrespective of sex and race (βs>-0.07, all p <0.034). There was some evidence that APOE ε2 was protective against cognitive decline, however associations were inconsistent across sex and race. Walking showed the strongest protective effect in ε4 carriers, slowing the decline in DSST among black females (β=0.39, p = 0.039), white females (β=0.60, p = 0.008), and white males (β=0.45, p = 0.009) (Figure 1). For 3MS, walking was associated with slower decline across ε4 carriers with slightly greater associations in black individuals (βs>1.11, p <0.001) compared to white (βs>0.67, p <0.031) (Figure 1). Walking was not associated with cognition decline in ε2 or ε3 carriers (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: APOE ε4 carriers displayed an elevated risk of cognitive decline; greater physical activity was significantly protective in this at-risk group. Greater walking was associated with better executive function/processing speed in white ε4 carriers, and better global cognition in black ε4 carrier. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring public messaging about physical activity strategies to at-risk vulnerable populations and highlight the intersection of genetic, sex, demographic, and lifestyle factors in cognitive aging research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→