Adjusting the compass: new insights into the role of angiogenesis in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing evidence suggests that vascular perturbation plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). It appears to be a common feature in addition to the classic pathological hallmarks of amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary. Moreover, the accumulation of Aβ in the cerebral vasculature is closely associated with cognitive decline, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) has been shown to coincide with the onset of cognitive impairment. Although it was originally hypothesized that the accumulation of Aβ and the subsequent disruption of the BBB were due to the impaired clearance of Aβ from the brain, a body of data now suggests an alternative hypothesis for vascular dysfunction in AD that amyloidogenesis promotes extensive neoangiogenesis leading to increased vascular permeability and subsequent hypervascularization. In this review, we discuss the role Aβ plays in angiogenesis of the neurovasculature and BBB and how it may contribute to the pathogenesis of AD. These studies suggest that interventions that directly or indirectly affect angiogenesis could have beneficial effects on amyloid and other pathways in 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".