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 63 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Strikingly gene-expression, network-based analysis and cell type deconvolution approaches revealed a consistent immune signature in the brain and blood of female AD patients that was absent in males. In females, network-based analysis revealed a coordinated program of gene expression involving several zinc finger nuclease genes related to Herpes simplex viral infection whose expression was modulated by the presence of the APOE ε4 allele. Interestingly, this gene expression program was missing in the brains of male AD patients. Cell type deconvolution identified an increase in neutrophils and naïve B cells and a decrease in M2 macrophages, memory B cells, and CD8+ T cells in AD samples compared to controls in females. Interestingly, among males with AD, no significant differences in immune cell proportions compared to controls were observed. Machine learning-based classification of AD using gene expression from whole blood in addition to clinical features produced an improvement in classification accuracy upon stratifying by sex, achieving an AUROC of 0.91 for females and 0.80 for males. These results help identify sex and APOE ε4 genotype-specific transcriptomic signatures of AD and underscore the importance of considering sex in the development of biomarkers and therapeutic strategies for AD.

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

APA 7th

Paranjpe, M. D., Belonwu, S., Wang, J. K., Oskotsky, T., Gupta, A., Taubes, A., et al. (2021). Sex-Specific Cross Tissue Meta-Analysis Identifies Immune Dysregulation in Women With Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.735611

Vancouver

Paranjpe MD, Belonwu S, Wang JK, Oskotsky T, Gupta A, Taubes A, et al. Sex-Specific Cross Tissue Meta-Analysis Identifies Immune Dysregulation in Women With Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2021. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.735611. PMID: 34658838.

BibTeX

@article{paranjpe2021-34658838,
  author  = {Paranjpe, M. D. and Belonwu, S. and Wang, J. K. and Oskotsky, T. and Gupta, A. and Taubes, A. and Zalocusky, K. A. and Paranjpe, I. and others},
  title   = {{Sex-Specific Cross Tissue Meta-Analysis Identifies Immune Dysregulation in Women With Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.3389/fnagi.2021.735611},
  pmid    = {34658838},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.735611}
}

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

Why it matters

This meta-analysis found a consistent immune signature in the brain and blood of female Alzheimer's disease patients that was absent in males, and classification accuracy improved when results were split by sex. These findings are about immune differences and biomarkers and do not test any treatment, cure or prevention.

Study details

How this study scored 63/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 4 of 7; Citations per year 2 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 1 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 3 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 60 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 63 of 100. Total 63 of 100.60 of the 96 points we could judge = 63 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 60 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience: journal h-index 174 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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 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 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited 4 / 7 Cited 50 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 2 / 5 7.1 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 5.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 1 / 6 Cited by 2 other studies in this library
Still being cited 2 / 4 Cited 29 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 3 / 3 Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34658838)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 60 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 60 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100.
Total 63 / 100 —

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 20.

Later studies that cite this one

2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “amyloid-beta”

1,339 studies in the library carry the topic tag “amyloid-beta”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,339 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →