Steroid hormones: risk and resilience in women’s Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More women have Alzheimer disease (AD) than men, but the reasons for this phenomenon are still unknown. Including women in clinical research and studying their biology is key to understand not just their increased risk but also their resilience against the disease. In this sense, women are more affected by AD than men, but their reserve or resilience mechanisms might delay symptom onset. The aim of this review was to explore what is known about mechanisms underlying women's risk and resilience in AD and identify emerging themes in this area that merit further research. We conducted a review of studies analyzing molecular mechanisms that may induce neuroplasticity in women, as well as cognitive and brain reserve. We also analyzed how the loss of steroid hormones in aging may be linked to AD. We included empirical studies with human and animal models, literature reviews as well as meta-analyses. Our search identified the importance of 17-b-estradiol (E2) as a mechanism driving cognitive and brain reserve in women. More broadly, our analysis revealed the following emerging perspectives: (1) the importance of steroid hormones and their effects on both neurons and glia for the study of risk and resilience in AD, (2) E2's crucial role in women's brain reserve, (3) women's verbal memory advantage as a cognitive reserve factor, and (4) E2's potential role in linguistic experiences such as multilingualism and hearing loss. Future directions for research include analyzing the reserve mechanisms of steroid hormones on neuronal and glial plasticity, as well as identifying the links between steroid hormone loss in aging and risk for 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".