MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117117571 · doi:10.1002/alz70855_103613

Genetic moderation on the relationship between brain white matter hyperintensities and amyloid‐beta

2025· article· en· W7117117571 on OpenAlexaff
Che‐Yuan Wu, Daniel K Mori‐Fegan, Shiropa Noor, Lisa Y. Xiong, Si Won Ryoo, Myuri Ruthirakuhan, Saira S. Mirza, Mario Masellis, Ekaterina Rogaeva, Yutaka Amemiya, Arun Seth, Joel Ramirez, Christopher J.M. Scott, Fuqiang Gao, Sean Symons, C. Heyn, Benjamin Lam, Katherine Zukotynski, Aparna Bhan, Richard H. Swartz, Demetrios J. Sahlas, Maged Goubran, Julia Keith, David A. A. Bennett, Sandra E. Black, Meghan J. Chenoweth, Walter Swardfager

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationOccupational Cancer Research CentreHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook HospitalToronto Dementia Research AllianceUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensityDiseaseWhite matterModerationNeuroimagingAmyloid (mycology)Association (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Brain white matter hyperintensities (WMH) are vascular lesions commonly observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). WMH were previously shown to be associated with greater brain amyloid, but the molecular pathways underlying their complex relation remain unclear. Here, we aim to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) that modify the relationship between WMH and AD amyloid biomarkers. METHOD: We conducted a genome-wide interaction study in participants with AD, mild cognitive impairment, and normal cognition from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). WMH were measured from FLAIR MRI using an automated atlas-based segmentation. Amyloid-β 42 (Aβ42) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were measured using immunoassays. Interactions between SNPs and WMH volumes on CSF-Aβ42 were assessed via a linear regression model adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, MMSE, APOE-ε4 status, head-size, and 4 genetic principal components in PLINK2. The most influential SNP was identified via Sum of Single Effects (SuSiE) regression. Significant SNP-WMH interactions were validated in participants from the UK Biobank (UKB) with available plasma-Aβ42 data quantified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. SNP-WMH interactions in relation to amyloid pathology (diffuse and neuritic plaque burden) was investigated in the Religious Orders Study/Rush Memory and Aging Project (ROSMAP). RESULT: >0.99%, n = 863) interacted with WMH to predict Aβ42 (nearest gene: U7 small nuclear RNA (snRNA) XR_007066478.1 [-111KB]). The effect of this SNP was also significant in the dominant and recessive genetic models (relative to the minor A-allele). This SNP-WMH interaction was replicated in UKB (n = 645) in both additive (B=0.91, p = 0.017) and dominant models (B=0.96, p = 0.024). In ROSMAP (n = 195), significant SNP-WMH interaction was observed on diffuse plaque burden in the additive (B=-0.46, p = 0.049) and dominant (B=-0.51, p = 0.046) models. The minor A-allele exhibited a protective effect by being associated with higher circulating Aβ42 (in ADNI and UKB) and lower diffuse plaque burden (in ROSMAP) in individuals with greater WMH. CONCLUSION: Genomic variants moderated the relationship between WMH and amyloid biomarkers, suggesting a novel regulatory role for snRNA. This genome-wide interaction study highlights the potential contributions of snRNA and related pathways to the relationship between vascular disease and amyloid biomarkers in AD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.265 · 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→