MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294532941 · doi:10.3233/jad-160152

Microbes and Alzheimer’s Disease

2016· review· en· W2294532941 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth F. Itzhaki, Richard Lathe, Brian J. Balin, Melvyn J. Ball, Elaine L. Bearer, Heiko Braak, María J. Bullido, Christopher Carter, Mario Clerici, S. Louise Cosby, Kelly Del Tredici, Hugh J. Field, Tamàs Fülöp, Claudio Grassi, W. Sue T. Griffin, Jürgen Haas, Alan P. Hudson, Angela R. Kamer, Douglas B. Kell, Federico Licastro, Luc Letenneur, Hugo Lövheim, Roberta Mancuso, Judith Miklossy, Carola Otth, Anna Teresa Palamara, George Perry, Christopher Preston, Etheresia Pretorius, Timo Strandberg, Naji Tabet, Simon D. Taylor‐Robinson, Judith A. Whittum‐Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsDiseaseAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyNeuroscienceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are researchers and clinicians working on Alzheimer's disease (AD) or related topics, and we write to express our concern that one particular aspect of the disease has been neglected, even though treatment based on it might slow or arrest AD progression. We refer to the many studies, mainly on humans, implicating specific microbes in the elderly brain, notably herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV1), Chlamydia pneumoniae, and several types of spirochaete, in the etiology of AD. Fungal infection of AD brain has also been described, as well as abnormal microbiota in AD patient blood. The first observations of HSV1 in AD brain were reported almost three decades ago. The ever-increasing number of these studies (now about 100 on HSV1 alone) warrants re-evaluation of the infection and AD concept.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations536
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207