<i>APOE</i> ε4 genotyping for populational enrichment of tau‐targeting clinical trials in cognitively impaired individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The accumulation of tau tangle deposits is a potential target for clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD). It is known that amyloid‐β (Aβ) pathology and the apolipoprotein E ε4 ( APOE ε4) allele accelerate tau pathology; yet, it is unclear whether assessing both variables could lead to more cost‐effective tau‐targeting trials using tau positron emission tomography (PET) as outcome. Here, we investigated the potential utility of considering APOE ε4 carriership for population enrichment in AD trials testing drug effects on tau tangle deposition in cognitively impaired (CI) individuals. Method Data was retrieved from the ADNI cohort. We selected CI participants with available clinical assessments, APOE genotyping, Aβ PET ([ 18 F]Florbetapir or [ 18 F]Florbetaben) and tau PET ([ 18 F]Flortaucipir) at baseline and a 2‐year follow‐up. Patients with global [ 18 F]Florbetapir SUVR >1.11 or [ 18 F]Florbetaben SUVR >1.08 were considered Aβ positive (Aβ+). We calculated required sample size and total costs for a hypothetical clinical trial testing a 25% drug effect on reducing tau PET accumulation in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) and neocortex (NEO) with 80% power at alpha level 0.05. Result We studied 78 CI individuals over a mean (SD) of 2.16 (0.31) years of follow up (Table 1). Figure 1 displays enrichment strategies based on the use of Aβ positivity alone or APOE ε4 carriership associated with Aβ positivity for the selection of patients for a hypothetical tau‐targeting trial in CI individuals. The addition of APOE ε4 carriership to Aβ positivity in the population enrichment strategy would notably reduce the required sample sizes (tau PET MTL = 53% and tau PET NEO = 41%), as well as trial costs (tau PET MTL = 55% and tau PET NEO = 44%), compared to using Aβ positivity alone (Figure 2). Conclusion Our results support that using APOE ε4 genotype together with Aβ positivity for population enrichment to select individuals at higher risk of fast tau accumulation could potentially reduce required sample sizes and costs for tau‐targeting trials focusing on CI individuals. Hence, this may be a cost‐effective strategy.
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 | 0.056 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".