Bibliographic record
Abstract
The entire FASEB community is saddened by the death of The FASEB Journal former Editor-in-Chief, on July 10, 2019. The FASEB Journal's current Editor-in-Chief Thoru Pederson said: “In all ways of the mind, Gerry was a true renaissance individual. His sterling qualities as a physician, scientist, and mentor, and as a gifted author, were widely known. His leadership as the Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal was an outstanding contribution in his later career, and his editorials on those pages were both eloquent and elegant. We shall not see the likes of him again anytime soon.” A more comprehensive memoir of Dr. Weissmann will appear in the October 2019 issue of the journal. During the lunch break at the meeting of The FASEB Journal's editorial board in March 2017, a fortuitous conversation occurred. Sitting with me, Joel Buxbaum (Scripps Research Institute, Fig. 1) related how he as well as others in the vexing Alzheimer's disease field had been open-mindedly pondering the possibility that the two major pathogenic ideas, one involving amyloid deposition and the other rogue behavior of the protein tau, might not be the full picture. As we talked further, neither of us came to the point of suggesting that either of those two ideas might be wrong. Although there might be other dimensions worth considering, acting either as the “true” pathogenic event or perhaps, more likely, hitherto unrecognized players in a complex dramatis personae. Accordingly, I invited Joel to commission a series of review articles on Alzheimer's disease by investigators pursuing ideas outside the amyloid/tau doctrine. We agreed that this series should not be seen as a direct confrontation with the leading pathogenic concepts but should be a calibration and perhaps to some degree a reset, again bearing in mind that the true agent of the condition might be the concurrence of more than one event. Joel Buxbaum. (Personal photograph provided by J.B.) As the last of the articles was received, reviewed, and published, I invited Joel to write a short epilogue piece to tie the series together. What I received instead was not a brief synopsis of the series but a masterpiece on the state of the art in the Alzheimer's disease field. Although the commissioned articles in the series can each be assessed on their own, I salute Joel for concluding the series with such a comprehensive and thought-provoking perspective of his own. His article and the series have given The FASEB Journal the opportunity to inform and provoke thinking on Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis at a time when big pharma has recently terminated several drug programs based on the prevailing “standard models.” As in all science, a key imperative is keeping an open mind.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.018 |
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".