The amyloid cascade hypothesis: an updated critical review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results from recent clinical trials of antibodies that target amyloid-β (Aβ) for Alzheimer's disease have created excitement and have been heralded as corroboration of the amyloid cascade hypothesis. However, while Aβ may contribute to disease, genetic, clinical, imaging and biochemical data suggest a more complex aetiology. Here we review the history and weaknesses of the amyloid cascade hypothesis in view of the new evidence obtained from clinical trials of anti-amyloid antibodies. These trials indicate that the treatments have either no or uncertain clinical effect on cognition. Despite the importance of amyloid in the definition of Alzheimer's disease, we argue that the data point to Aβ playing a minor aetiological role. We also discuss data suggesting that the concerted activity of many pathogenic factors contribute to Alzheimer's disease and propose that evolving multi-factor disease models will better underpin the search for more effective strategies to treat the disease.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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 it