MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287878853 · doi:10.1002/brb3.2728

Is Alzheimer's disease an infectious neurological disease? A review of the literature

2022· review· en· W4287878853 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Uwishema, Ashraf Mahmoud, Jeffrey Sun, Inês F. Silva Correia, Niovi Bejjani, Maria Alwan, Nicholas Aderinto, Adekunbi Oluyemisi, Burhan Dost

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseDementiaAlzheimer's diseaseEtiologyMechanism (biology)MedicineMEDLINENeuroscienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)Intensive care medicineBioinformaticsPsychologyPsychiatryPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a leading cause of dementia around the globe. Its pathogenesis is characterized primarily by the extracellular deposition of amyloid β peptides and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. Despite the significant investments in neurological research, the exact molecular mechanism of AD pathogenesis is still not fully elucidated. Several studies converge on a hypothesis that pathogenic microbes might play a role in AD progression. Although this hypothesis has been considered relatively weak for decades, it has recently received considerable attention due to increasing evidence on the association between microorganisms and AD. There is a lack of experimental and scientific arguments conveying that these microorganisms engender cognitive and neuropathological deficits and modifications specific to AD, challenging the theory that it could be an infectious neurological disease. This review focuses on recent advances in the infection hypothesis and provides an overview of new findings portraying the significance of pathogenic microbes in AD and the challenges confronting the validity of the hypothesis. METHODOLOGY: Data were collected from medical journals published on PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Embase bibliographical databases with a predefined search strategy. All articles considering neurological disorders, especially AD associated with infectious diseases, were included. RESULTS: This work focused on providing an overview of new findings around the relationship between microorganisms and AD, challenges facing the validity of the theory, and recommendations on how the scientific community can best develop alternative approaches to address the pathophysiology of AD. CONCLUSION: While many studies reinforce the suspicion of an infectious etiology of AD, it is important to note that it is yet not validated how microorganisms' presence in the brain can develop AD due to the limited available evidence. Certainly, ground-breaking work is mandatory in this field of research, and these reports so far warrant a thorough investigation into how a chronic infection may remain silent while progressing its neuroinflammation. Amid this uncertainty arises the hope that many researchers will take on this challenge and join this endeavor to benefit AD patients worldwide.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations68
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207