Alzheimer’s disease’s tau and amyloid-beta hypothesis - Interplay with the innate immune system, neuroinflammation and gut microbiome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia that affects millions of people worldwide. It is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that exerts significant burdens upon patients. Although the disease was studied by countless researchers since the discovery in 1906, there is no current cure for AD. This is because the exact cause, or etiology, of AD remains unknown. However, more and more research has been carried out to investigate its pathogenesis, from the ancient cholinergic hypothesis to the most supported tau and amyloid-beta (Aβ) hypothesis. As one of the most studied and supported hypotheses, the tau and Aβ hypothesis suggests an association between the impaired neurotoxic proteins (tau and amyloid-beta) and the development of AD. This process has been claimed to link with multiple aspects of pathogenesis, e.g., innate immunity responses, neuroinflammation, and the gut microbiome. All these factors interact with each other to influence the complex mechanism of tau and Aβ. This review aims to summarize the main findings regarding the tau and Aβ hypothesis from aspects of genetics, innate immune response, inflammation, and the gut microbiome. Based on the results, innate immune response and inflammation contribute to tau and Aβ production, which results in AD progression. Moreover, the role of the gut microbiome is discussed in innate immunity and AD pathogenesis. These results offer a guideline for further understanding 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".