MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008087702 · doi:10.2174/156720505774330573

The Role of Apoptotic Pathways in Alzheimers Disease Neurodegeneration and Cell Death

2005· review· en· W2008087702 on OpenAlexaff
Andréa C. LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Alzheimer Research · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsNeurodegenerationNeuroscienceAlzheimer's diseaseMechanism (biology)DiseaseProgrammed cell deathDementiaFrontotemporal dementiaBiologyEffectorApoptosisMedicineCell biologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuronal loss is associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, it not clear what type of mechanisms underlie this neuronal loss and if neuronal loss is directly responsible for the progressive dementia of AD. This review summarizes the recent evidence for neuronal loss in AD relative to the level of cognitive impairment. It further describes the current evidence for an apoptotic mechanism in AD. Lastly, a summary of the evidence for synaptic loss being responsible for dementia rather than neuronal loss is presented. A novel hypothesis emerges from this data to explain all aspects of AD pathophysiology. This all inclusive hypothesis called the attrition hypothesis states that activation of the effector caspase-6 in AD due to one or a variety of insults is responsible for the breakdown of the cytoskeletal structure of neurites and damages proper trafficking of proteins and organelles thus resulting in the observed clinical and pathological features of AD.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations112
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Alzheimer ResearchSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207