The case for blood–brain barrier dysfunction in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease that leads to a progressive loss of integrative and memory capacities of the brain. This is the predominant form of neurodegenerative dementia, with a growing prevalence of between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100 in North America. Numerous hypotheses related to the etiology of AD have developed over the years. However, among the various published hypotheses, the predominant one is related to the progressive and prominent accumulation of central nervous system β-amyloid peptide and the ensuing brain burden created. It is, therefore, important to consider the homeostatic mechanisms underlying β-amyloid transport dynamics between the brain and blood vascular compartments. As well, there is a dynamic interrelationship between soluble and insoluble forms of the peptide. Factors that underlie and regulate these dynamic processes are likely relevant to the end accumulation of β-amyloid peptide in the brain compartment and ultimately in insoluble forms, which is characteristic of, and significant for, the pathophysiology of the Alzheimer's brain. Significantly, and in particular relation to the amyloid burden theory mentioned above, it has been postulated that a dysfunctioning blood-brain barrier (BBB) may play a significant, if not critical, role in the pathogenesis of AD. By allowing the influx of injurious materials or agents into the brain or by impeding or blocking the efflux of those materials and/or agents, BBB-related neuronopathies and their associated sequelae could, and do, ensue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".