ArticleHuman genetics2026
Deviations from additivity in APOE4-mediated late-onset Alzheimer's disease risk across races and ethnicities.
Article in Human genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
APOE’s ε4 haplotype (APOE4) is late onset Alzheimer’s disease’s (LOAD) strongest genetic risk factor. Therefore, accurately modeling APOE4’s effect is critical to understanding LOAD. This is especially important as APOE4 odds ratios (OR) vary across racial and ethnic (R/E) groups. We analyzed the APOE4-LOAD association in 3,196 East Asian, 31,105 non-Hispanic White (White), 1,646 Hispanic and Latino (Hispanic), and 6,068 non-Hispanic Black (Black) participants using three genetic models: additive, genotypic, and a reparametrized model accounting for deviations from additivity (DA). Each model adjusted for age, sex, and genetic ancestry. We first calculated additive APOE4 ORs in each R/E group, finding East Asian participants had the largest APOE4 ORs (ORAPOE4: 5.2, 95%CI: 4.4–6.0) and Black participants among the smallest (ORAPOE4: 2.8, 95%CI: 2.6–3.1). Next, we generated APOE4 ORs for heterozygote and homozygote ε4 carriers. These genotypic ORs were statistically the same as the additive APOE4 estimates for all models except homozygote East Asian participants. The measured homozygote East Asian estimate (ORAPOE4: 41.5, 95%CI: 22.1–88.8) was 57% higher than its predicted counterpart based on additivity, indicating significant non-additive contributions. Finally, we used a reparametrized model that adjusted for DA. Although equivalent to the genotypic model, this adjustment provided insight into DA while significantly improving model performance among Black participants. This report demonstrates that APOE4 estimates differ based on the genetic modeling strategy, introduces explicit DA adjustments in the APOE4-LOAD association, and cautions against blindly assuming additivity across R/E groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.