Late-onset vs nonmendelian early-onset Alzheimer disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is mounting evidence that only a small fraction of early-onset Alzheimer disease cases (onset <65 years) are explained by known mutations. Even multiplex families with early onset often also have late-onset cases, suggesting that the commonly applied categorization of Alzheimer disease into early- and late-onset forms may not reflect distinct underlying etiology. Nevertheless, this categorization continues to govern today's research and the design of clinical trials. The aim of this review is to evaluate this categorization by providing a comprehensive, critical review of reported clinical, neuropathologic, and genomic characteristics of both onset-based subtypes and explore potential overlap between both categories. The article will lay out the need to comprehensively assess the phenotypic, neuropathologic, and molecular variability in Alzheimer disease and identify factors explaining the observed significant variation in onset age in persons with and without known mutations. The article will critically review ongoing large-scale genomic efforts in Alzheimer disease research (e.g., Alzheimer Disease Sequencing Project, Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network, Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative) and their shortcomings to disentangle the delineation of unexplained nonmendelian early-onset from late-onset and mendelian forms of Alzheimer disease. In addition, it will outline specific approaches including epigenetic research through which a comprehensive characterization of this delineation can be achieved.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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 it