You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 273 No. 5, February 1, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Apolipoprotein E E4 Allele and Sex-Specific Risk of Alzheimer's Disease-Reply

Haydeh Payami, PhD; Kim R. Montee; Jeffrey A. Kaye, MD
Oregon Health Sciences University Portland

Ellen M. Wijsman, PhD; Thomas Bird, MD; Chang-En Yu, PhD; Leonard L. Heston, MD; Gerard D. Schellenberg, PhD
University of Washington Seattle

JAMA. 1995;273(5):374.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—We originally reported data on late-onset familial AD that showed a significantly (P=.004) higher risk for women with one apo E E4 allele than for men with one E4 allele. In their letter, Dr Corder and colleagues report no significant difference between men and women in their late-onset familial and sporadic AD data. Lack of evidence in sporadic AD is not surprising; we had suspected that the gender difference may be present only in the familial cases. However, it is puzzling that they did not find the same strong gender difference that we did in the familial cases. According to Figures 1 and 2 of their letter, by 85 years of age nearly 100% of women with one E4 allele were affected as compared with 50% of men with one E4 allele, but the overall difference was not statistically significant (P=.12), possibly indicative of small sample . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1995 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.