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 62 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Objective To determine whether the ε2 allele is protective against Aβ accumulation in the presence of the ε4 allele and evaluate how age and the APOE genotype are associated with emerging Aβ accumulation and cognitive dysfunction. Results A total of 4432 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [4.7] years; 2634 women [59.4%]), with a mean (SD) of 16.6 (2.8) years of education and 1512 (34.1%) with a positive Aβ level. APOE ε2 was associated with a reduction in both the overall (standardized uptake value ratio [SUVR], ε24, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.08-1.14]; ε34, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.17-1.19]) and the age-dependent level of Aβ in the presence of ε4, with Aβ levels in the APOE ε24 group (n = 115; ε24, 0.005 SUVR increase per year of age) increasing at less than half the rate with respect to increasing age compared with the APOE ε34 group (n = 1295; 0.012 SUVR increase per year of age; P = .04). The association between Aβ and decreasing Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite scores did not differ by APOE genotype, and the reduced performance on the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite in APOE ε4 carriers compared with noncarriers was completely mediated by Aβ (unadjusted difference in composite scores between ε4 carriers and noncarriers = -0.084, P = .005; after adjusting for 18F-florbetapir = -0.006, P = .85; after adjusting for 18F-florbetapir and cardiovascular scores = -0.009, P = .78). Conclusions and relevance These findings suggest that the protective outcome of carrying an ε2 allele in the presence of an ε4 allele against Aβ accumulation is important for potential treatments that attempt to biochemically mimic the function of the ε2 allele in order to facilitate Aβ clearance in ε4 carriers.

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

APA 7th

Insel, P. S., Hansson, O., & Mattsson-Carlgren, N. (2021). Association Between Apolipoprotein E ε2 vs ε4, Age, and β-Amyloid in Adults Without Cognitive Impairment. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3780

Vancouver

Insel PS, Hansson O, Mattsson-Carlgren N. Association Between Apolipoprotein E ε2 vs ε4, Age, and β-Amyloid in Adults Without Cognitive Impairment. JAMA neurology. 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3780. PMID: 33044487.

BibTeX

@article{insel2021-33044487,
  author  = {Insel, P. S. and Hansson, O. and Mattsson-Carlgren, N.},
  title   = {{Association Between Apolipoprotein E ε2 vs ε4, Age, and β-Amyloid in Adults Without Cognitive Impairment}},
  journal = {JAMA neurology},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3780},
  pmid    = {33044487},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3780}
}

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 62/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / 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; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 38 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 62 of 100. Total 62 of 100.38 of the 61 points we could judge = 62 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomised / 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
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 2 / 4 115 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation 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
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33044487)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 38 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total 62 / 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 Treatments

Also tagged “age”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “age”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →