Hallmarks of neurodegenerative disease: A systems pharmacology perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-related central neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, are a rising public health concern and have been plagued by repeated drug development failures. The complex nature and poor mechanistic understanding of the etiology of neurodegenerative diseases has hindered the discovery and development of effective disease-modifying therapeutics. Quantitative systems pharmacology models of neurodegeneration diseases may be useful tools to enhance the understanding of pharmacological intervention strategies and to reduce drug attrition rates. Due to the similarities in pathophysiological mechanisms across neurodegenerative diseases, especially at the cellular and molecular levels, we envision the possibility of structural components that are conserved across models of neurodegenerative diseases. Conserved structural submodels can be viewed as building blocks that are pieced together alongside unique disease components to construct quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models of neurodegenerative diseases. Model parameterization would likely be different between the different types of neurodegenerative diseases as well as individual patients. Formulating our mechanistic understanding of neurodegenerative pathophysiology as a mathematical model could aid in the identification and prioritization of drug targets and combinatorial treatment strategies, evaluate the role of patient characteristics on disease progression and therapeutic response, and serve as a central repository of knowledge. Here, we provide a background on neurodegenerative diseases, highlight hallmarks of neurodegeneration, and summarize previous QSP models of neurodegenerative diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".