MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965483115 · doi:10.1586/14737175.5.2.277

Acetylcholinergic neurotransmission and the β-amyloid cascade: implications for Alzheimer’s disease

2005· review· en· W1965483115 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolaas Paul L.G. Verhoeff

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurotransmissionNeuroscienceAmyloid (mycology)Alzheimer's diseaseDiseaseDegenerative diseaseAmyloid betaPsychologyInternal medicineMedicinePathologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease is characterized by both decreases in acetylcholinergic neurotransmission and increases in beta-amyloid accumulation. Currently, available clinical psychopharmacologic treatment is focused on increasing acetylcholinergic neurotransmission, whereas no clinical treatments to directly reduce beta-amyloid accumulation are available. Cholinesterase inhibitors improve cognition, certain neuropsychiatric symptoms and functional impairment in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, and it is believed that this is mainly symptomatic treatment. However, this review discusses various levels of interaction between acetylcholinergic neurotransmission and the beta-amyloid cascade, which suggest that some specific acetylcholinergic treatments may reduce beta-amyloid accumulation, and therefore may slow disease progression over the long term. Various suggestions are made on how such potential disease-modifying effects could be studied in the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207