The Brain–Heart Axis: Alzheimer’s, Diabetes, and Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a debilitating neurodegenerative disorder affecting millions worldwide. Currently, there are only four approved treatments for AD, which improve symptoms modestly. AD is believed to be caused by the formation of intercellular plaques and intracellular tangles in the brain, but thus far all new drugs which target these pathologies have failed clinical trials. New research highlights the link between AD and Type II Diabetes (T2D), and some believe that AD is actually a brain specific form of it termed Type III Diabetes (T3D). Drugs which are currently approved for the treatment of T2D, such as metformin, have shown promising results in improving cognitive function and even preventing the development of AD in diabetic patients. Recent studies shed light on the relationship between the brain and cardiovascular system in which the brain and heart communicate with one another via the vasculature to regulate fluid and nutrient homeostasis. This line of research reveals how the brain-heart axis regulates hypertension and diabetes, both of which can impact cognitive function. In this review we survey past and ongoing research and clinical trials for AD, and argue that AD is a complex and systemic disorder which requires comprehensive approaches beyond the brain for effective prevention and/or treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".