Recent Progress in Alzheimer’s Disease Research, Part 3: Diagnosis and Treatment
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.912
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.999
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.149 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
The field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) research has grown exponentially over the past few decades, especially since the isolation and identification of amyloid-β from postmortem examination of the brains of AD patients. Recently, the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (JAD) put forth approximately 300 research reports which were deemed to be the most influential research reports in the field of AD since 2010. JAD readers were asked to vote on these most influential reports. In this 3-part review, we review the results of the 300 most influential AD research reports to provide JAD readers with a readily accessible, yet comprehensive review of the state of contemporary research. Notably, this multi-part review identifies the "hottest" fields of AD research providing guidance for both senior investigators as well as investigators new to the field on what is the most pressing fields within AD research. Part 1 of this review covers pathogenesis, both on a molecular and macro scale. Part 2 review genetics and epidemiology, and part 3 covers diagnosis and treatment. This part of the review, diagnosis and treatment, reviews the latest diagnostic criteria, biomarkers, imaging, and treatments 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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Alzheimer s Disease
- Topic
- Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- NOSM UniversityLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
- Funders
- BrightFocus Foundation
- Keywords
- DiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes