MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070243746 · doi:10.1586/17512433.2013.811237

Novel disease-modifying therapeutics for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease

2013· review· en· W2070243746 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel C. Léger, Fadi Massoud

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Pharmacology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseMemantineClinical trialDementiaIntensive care medicineMechanism (biology)Drug developmentDrugPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia and is becoming a global health concern. Despite a well-established understanding of the molecular mechanism involved in its pathogenesis, and millions of dollars of investment in drug discovery and clinical trials, no single molecule has yet been approved for its treatment since the advent of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. This review examines first the optimal use of currently approved agents and then explores in detail the current Phase II and III clinical trial landscape, while spending some time on the mechanistic details. Driven by the increasing knowledge gleaned from numerous Phase III failures and improvements in early detection and biomarkers, there is renewed enthusiasm that a cure is taking shape along the visible horizon.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.453
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical PharmacologySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207