Impaired Resolution of Inflammation in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains the leading cause of dementia worldwide, and over the last several decades, the role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of this neurodegenerative disorder has been increasingly elucidated. The initiation of the acute inflammatory response is counterbalanced by an active process termed resolution. This process is designed to restore homeostasis and promote tissue healing by the activation of neutrophilic apoptosis, promotion of neutrophil clearance by macrophages, and increasing anti-inflammatory cytokine levels, while concurrently leading to a diminution in pro-inflammatory mediators. The switch from the initiation to the resolution phase of inflammation is initially characterized by increased production of arachidonic acid-derived pro-resolving lipoxins and decreases in pro-inflammatory prostaglandin and leukotriene levels, subsequently followed by increases in specialized pro-resolving lipid mediators derived from omega-3 fatty acids (ω-3 FAs). There is mounting evidence that in AD, the resolution of inflammation is impaired, resulting in chronic inflammation and the exacerbation of the AD-related pathology. In this review, we examine preclinical and clinical evidence supporting the hypothesis that AD is a neurodegenerative disorder where the impairment or failure of resolution contributes to the disease process. Moreover, we review the literature supporting the potential therapeutic role of ω-3 FAs and specialized pro-resolving lipid mediators in the management of the disease. Lastly, we highlight areas that could strengthen the association of failed resolution to AD and should, therefore, be the focus of future scientific investigations in this research field.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".