Late-onset vs nonmendelian early-onset Alzheimer disease
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".