The Molecular and Functional Changes of Neural Stem Cells in Alzheimer’sDisease: Can They be Reinvigorated to Conduct Neurogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is considered one of the most complicated neurodegenerative disorders, and it is associated with progressive memory loss and remarkable neurocognitive dysfunction that negatively impacts the ability to perform daily living activities. AD accounts for an estimated 60-80% of dementia cases. AD's previously known pathological basis is the deposition of amyloid β (Aβ) aggregates and the formation of neurofibrillary tangles by tau hyperphosphorylation in the cell bodies of neurons that are located in the hippocampus, neocortex, and certain other regions of the cerebral hemispheres and limbic system. The lack of neurotransmitter acetylcholine and the activation of oxidative stress cascade may also contribute to the pathogenesis of AD. These pathological events can lead to irreversible loss of neuronal networks and the emergence of memory impairment and cognitive dysfunction that can engender an abnormal change in the personality. AD cannot be cured, and to some extent, the prescribed medications can only manage the symptoms associated with this disease. Several studies have reported that the regenerative abilities of neural stem/progenitor cells (NSCs) remarkably decline in AD, which disturbs the balancing power to control its progression. Exogenous infusion or endogenous activation of NSCs may be the ultimate solution to restore the neuronal networks in the brain of AD patients and regenerate the damaged areas responsible for memory and cognition. In this mini-review, we will touch upon the fate of NSCs in AD and the utilization of neurogenesis using modified NSCs to restore cognitive functions in 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".