ArticleBMC medical genomics2026
Downward bias in the association between APOE and Alzheimer's disease using prevalent and by-proxy disease sampling in the All of Us research program.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementias (ADRD) have increased statistical power via larger analysis datasets from biobanks by (1) including non-age-matched controls and prevalent cases, and/or (2) including individuals who report a family history of ADRD as proxy cases. However, these methods have the potential to increase noise and distort genetic associations which are important for genomic-informed prevention and treatment of ADRD. Here, we sought to understand how the effect sizes of genetic associations in ADRD could be sensitive to these methodological choices, using APOE genotypes as an example.
methodsParticipants in the All of Us Research Program over the age of 49 at enrollment (n = 229,722) were assigned one of four categories: incident ADRD (developed after enrollment in All of Us), prevalent ADRD (present on enrollment), proxy ADRD (participant noted a family history of ADRD), and control (no history or diagnosis of ADRD). ADRD diagnoses were determined using available electronic health records and APOE genotype was determined using whole-genome sequencing. Effect sizes for the associations between APOE risk alleles and ADRD diagnoses were compared using polychotomous logistic regression and presented as adjusted generalized ratios (AGR).
resultsThe mean age of the cohort was 64 ± 9 years, and it was 57% female; 65% clustered predominantly with European genetic reference populations. Among the participants, 733 (0.3%) had prevalent ADRD, 684 (0.3%) had incident ADRD, and 19,186 (8.4%) reported a family history of ADRD (proxy ADRD). The effect size for APOE ε4 heterozygote was similar for proxy ADRD (AGR [95% CI]: 2.10 [1.96–2.24]) but attenuated for prevalent ADRD (1.38 [1.17–1.63]) compared to incident ADRD (2.13 [1.81–2.50]). For APOE ε4 homozygotes, the effect sizes were significantly attenuated in both proxy (3.53 [2.93–4.26]) and prevalent (3.12 [2.20–4.45]) ADRD. Furthermore, APOE and ADRD association effect sizes increased when restricting the control (no ADRD) group to older age brackets.
conclusionsOur study highlights how genetic associations with ADRD can be sensitive to how cases are defined in biobanks like All of Us, with effect sizes downwardly biased when using prevalent or by-proxy cases compared to incident cases.
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.