Are Major Depressive Disorder and Diabetes Mellitus Amyloidogenic Conditions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) have reciprocal relationship and share common pathophysiological mechanisms in the central nervous system. Depression and diabetes negatively affect cognitive function and are independent risk factors for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer‟s disease (AD). It has been hypothesized that alterations in the production and processing of amyloid beta (Aβ) may be the principal pathological process in AD. Furthermore, it has been increasingly demonstrated that a long preclinical course precedes AD. A derivative of this observation is the hypothesis that a convergent pathophysiological substrate subserving MDD and DM may promote beta amyloid (Aβ) deposition. The present paper will review evidence linking MDD and DM to Aβ accumulation, with a particular emphasis on original reports that report on levels of Aβ40, Aβ42 and the Aβ40/42 ratio in plasma, serum, or cerebrospinal fluid of individuals with MDD and DM. The overarching goal herein is to press the point that MDD and DM are amyloidogenic and consequently represent modifiable risk factors for AD in later life. The prognostic intervention and prevention opportunity suggested by this notion is that: 1) increased rates of mood disorders and DM in an aging population will increase the population attributable risk for AD ascribed to these conditions, 2) improved outcomes in mood disorders and DM by effective "treating to target" may exert a salutary influence on underlying dementia promoting processes, 3) novel and repurposed medications that are capable of normalizing pathophysiological processes in MDD and DM could decrease the vulnerability towards 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".