MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alzheimer’s Disease: A short introduction to the calmodulin hypothesis

2019· review· en· W2980251462 on OpenAlexaff
Danton H. O’Day

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS neuroscience · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalmodulinNeurodegenerationDiseaseNeuroscienceCalciumCalcium-binding proteinAlzheimer's diseaseAmyloid (mycology)Tau proteinBiologyMedicineCell biologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the cellular level, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the presence of intracellular plaques containing amyloid beta (Aβ) protein and neurofibrillary tangles consisting of phospho-tau (p-tau). These biomarkers are considered to contribute, at least in part, to the neurodegenerative events of the disease. But the accumulation of plaques and tangles is widely considered to be a later event with other factors likely being the cause of the disease. Calcium dysregulation-the unregulated accumulation of calcium ions-in neurons is an early event that underlies neurodegeneration. In 2002, O'Day and Myre extended this "Calcium Hypothesis" to include calmodulin (CaM) the primary target of calcium, suggesting the "Calmodulin Hypothesis" as an updated alternative. Here we overview the central role of CaM in the formation of the classic hallmarks of AD: plaques and tangles. Then some insight into CaM's binding to various risk factor proteins is given followed by a short summary of specific receptors and channels linked to the disease that are CaM binding proteins. Overall, this review emphasizes the diversity of Alzheimer's-linked CaM-binding proteins validating the hypothesis that CaM operates critically at all stages of the disease and stands out as a potential primary target for future research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIMS neuroscienceSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207