MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130526148 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.630502

APOE and Alzheimer’s Disease: From Lipid Transport to Physiopathology and Therapeutics

2021· review· en· W3130526148 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Amir Husain, Benoît Laurent, Mélanie Plourde

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsApolipoprotein EAllelePathogenesisCerebrospinal fluidCentral nervous systemDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseNeuroscienceBiologyMedicineGenePathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a devastating neurodegenerative disorder characterized by extracellular amyloid β (Aβ) and intraneuronal tau protein aggregations. One risk factor for developing AD is the APOE gene coding for the apolipoprotein E protein (apoE). Humans have three versions of APOE gene: ε2, ε3, and ε4 allele. Carrying the ε4 allele is an AD risk factor while carrying the ε2 allele is protective. ApoE is a component of lipoprotein particles in the plasma at the periphery, as well as in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and in the interstitial fluid (ISF) of brain parenchyma in the central nervous system (CNS). ApoE is a major lipid transporter that plays a pivotal role in the development, maintenance, and repair of the CNS, and that regulates multiple important signaling pathways. This review will focus on the critical role of apoE in AD pathogenesis and some of the currently apoE-based therapeutics developed in the treatment of AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations339
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207