Modeling Alzheimer's disease with non-transgenic rat models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD), for which there is no cure, is the most common form of dementia in the elderly. Despite tremendous efforts by the scientific community, the AD drug development pipeline remains extremely limited. Animal models of disease are a cornerstone of any drug development program and should be as relevant as possible to the disease, recapitulating the disease phenotype with high fidelity, to meaningfully contribute to the development of a successful therapeutic agent. Over the past two decades, transgenic models of AD based on the known genetic origins of familial AD have significantly contributed to our understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in the onset and progression of the disease. These models were extensively used in AD drug development. The numerous reported failures of new treatments for AD in clinical trials indicate that the use of genetic models of AD may not represent the complete picture of AD in humans and that other types of animal models relevant to the sporadic form of the disease, which represents 95% of AD cases, should be developed. In this review, we will discuss the evolution of non-transgenic rat models of AD and how these models may open new avenues for drug development.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it