Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Risk genes beyond APOE

Topic: Genetics and APOE

The strategies of classifying APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 variants varied substantially in the previous studies. We aimed to re-evaluate these variants systematically according to the American college of medical genetics and genomics and the association for molecular pathology (ACMG-AMP) guidelines. In our study, APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 variants were collected by searching Alzforum and PubMed database with keywords "PSEN1," "PSEN2," and "APP." These variants were re-evaluated based on the ACMG-AMP guidelines. We compared the number of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants of APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2. In total, 66 APP variants, 323 PSEN1 variants, and 63 PSEN2 variants were re-evaluated in our study. 94.91% of previously reported pathogenic variants were re-classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants, while 5.09% of them were variants of uncertain significance (VUS). PSEN1 carried the most prevalent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants, followed by APP and PSEN2. Significant statistically difference was identified among these three genes when comparing the number of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (P < 2.2 × 10-16). Most of the previously reported pathogenic variants were re-classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants while the others were re-evaluated as VUS, highlighting the importance of interpreting APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 variants with caution according to ACMG-AMP guidelines.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Xiao, X., Liu, H., Liu, X., Zhang, W., Zhang, S., & Jiao, B. (2021). APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 Variants in Alzheimer's Disease: Systematic Re-evaluation According to ACMG Guidelines. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.695808

Vancouver

Xiao X, Liu H, Liu X, Zhang W, Zhang S, Jiao B. APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 Variants in Alzheimer's Disease: Systematic Re-evaluation According to ACMG Guidelines. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2021. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.695808. PMID: 34220489.

BibTeX

@article{xiao2021-34220489,
  author  = {Xiao, Xuewen and Liu, Hui and Liu, Xixi and Zhang, Weiwei and Zhang, Sizhe and Jiao, Bin},
  title   = {{APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 Variants in Alzheimer's Disease: Systematic Re-evaluation According to ACMG Guidelines}},
  journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.3389/fnagi.2021.695808},
  pmid    = {34220489},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.695808}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 25 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.25 of the 56 points we could judge = 45 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34220489)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 25 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk genes beyond APOE

Also tagged “genetics”

346 studies in the library carry the topic tag “genetics”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 346 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk genes beyond APOE

See all studies in Risk genes beyond APOE →