Does the Interplay Between Aging and Neuroinflammation Modulate Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Phenotypes? A Clinico-Pathological Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder and is the most common cause of dementia worldwide. Cumulative data suggests that neuroinflammation plays a prominent and early role in AD, and there is compelling data from different research groups of age-associated dysregulation of the neuroimmune system. From the clinical point of view, despite clinical resemblance and neuropathological findings, there are important differences between the group of patients with sporadic early-onset (<65 years old) and late-onset AD (>65 years old). Thus, it seems important to understand the age-dependent relationship between neuroinflammation and the underlying biology of AD in order to identify potential explanations for clinical heterogeneity, interpret biomarkers, and promote the best treatment to different clinical AD phenotypes. The study of the delicate balance between pro-inflammatory or anti-inflammatory sides of immune players in the different ages of onset of AD would be important to understand treatment efficacy in clinical trials and eventually, not only direct treatment to early disease stages, but also the possibility of establishing different treatment approaches depending on the age of the patient. In this review, we would like to summarize what is currently known about the interplay between "normal" age associated inflammatory changes and AD pathological mechanisms, and also the potential differences between early-onset and late-onset AD taking into account the age-related neuroimmune background at disease onset.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".