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 76 out of 100. Genetics

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been used to combine the effects of variants with small effects identified by genome-wide association studies. We explore the potential for using pathway-specific PRSs as predictors of early changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related biomarkers and cognitive function. Participants were from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention, a longitudinal study of adults who were cognitively asymptomatic at enrollment and enriched for a parental history of AD. Using genes associated with AD in the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project's meta-analysis, we identified clusters of genes that grouped into pathways involved in amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition and neurodegeneration: Aβ clearance, cholesterol metabolism, and immune response. Weighted pathway-specific and overall PRSs were developed and compared to APOE alone. Mixed models were used to assess whether each PRS was associated with cognition in 1,200 individuals, cerebral Aβ deposition measured using amyloid ligand (Pittsburgh compound B) positron emission imaging in 168 individuals, and cerebrospinal fluid Aβ deposition, neurodegeneration, and tau pathology in 111 individuals, with replication performed in an independent sample. We found that PRSs including APOE appeared to be driven by the inclusion of APOE, suggesting that the pathway-specific PRSs used here were not more predictive than an overall PRS or APOE alone. However, pathway-specific PRSs could prove to be useful as more knowledge is gained on the genetic variants involved in specific biological pathways of AD.

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

APA 7th

Darst, B. F., Koscik, R. L., Racine, A. M., Oh, J. M., Krause, R. A., Carlsson, C. M., et al. (2017). Pathway-Specific Polygenic Risk Scores as Predictors of Amyloid-β Deposition and Cognitive Function in a Sample at Increased Risk for Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160195

Vancouver

Darst BF, Koscik RL, Racine AM, Oh JM, Krause RA, Carlsson CM, et al. Pathway-Specific Polygenic Risk Scores as Predictors of Amyloid-β Deposition and Cognitive Function in a Sample at Increased Risk for Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2017. doi:10.3233/jad-160195. PMID: 27662287.

BibTeX

@article{darst2017-27662287,
  author  = {Darst, B. F. and Koscik, R. L. and Racine, A. M. and Oh, J. M. and Krause, R. A. and Carlsson, C. M. and Zetterberg, H. and Blennow, K. and others},
  title   = {{Pathway-Specific Polygenic Risk Scores as Predictors of Amyloid-β Deposition and Cognitive Function in a Sample at Increased Risk for Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-160195},
  pmid    = {27662287},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160195}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 76/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 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 left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 44 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 76 of 100. Total 76 of 100.44 of the 58 points we could judge = 76 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A meta-analysis pooling many studies
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,200 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
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 — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27662287)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 44 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100.
Total 76 / 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.

Related studies in Genetics

Also tagged “sample”

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

Similar studies

More on Genetics

See all studies in Genetics →