A SCOPING REVIEW OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE HYPOTHESES: THE CASE FOR A MULTI-FACTORIAL THEORY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction There is a common agreement that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is inherently complex; otherwise, a general disagreement remains on its etiological underpinning, with numerous alternative hypotheses having been proposed. Methods We performed a scoping review of 105 original manuscripts describing hypotheses and theories of AD published in the past decades, characterized them as having a single or multifactorial focus, and tracked their impact. Results Three stages can be discerned in terms of hypotheses generation, with three quarter of studies proposing a hypothesis characterized as being single-focus. The most important theoretical groupings were the Amyloid group, followed by Metabolism and Mitochondrial dysfunction, then Cerebrovascular. Lately, evidence towards Genetics and especially Gut/Brain interactions came to the fore. Discussion When viewed together, these multi-faceted reports reinforce the notion that AD affects multiple sub-cellular, cellular, anatomical, and physiological systems at the same time but at varying degree between individuals. A major impediment remains provide a comprehensive view of all these systems and their interactions to manage its inherent complexity. RESEARCH IN CONTEXT We propose a scoping review of 105 original manuscripts describing hypotheses and theories of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) that have been published in the past decades, characterized as having a single or multifactorial focus. We found that three quarter of studies proposed a hypothesis characterized as being single-focus (77/105), with the most important theoretical groupings being the Amyloid group, followed by Metabolism and Mitochondrial dysfunction, then Cerebrovascular. Three stages can be discerned in terms of hypotheses generation. The first phase (∼1980-1995) included the establishment of the main thrusts that have endured to this day (Amyloid, Glial, Infection, Inflammation, Metabolism, Oxidative stress, and Proteinopathies hypotheses; multifactorality; and neurotoxicity). In the second phase (1995-2005), the importance of the Cerebrovasculature, Mitochondrial dysfunction, and Neurotransmitters were recognized. Lately (2005-2020), evidence towards Genetics (outside of the autosomal dominant form of AD), and especially Gut/Brain interactions came to the fore. When viewed together, these multi-faceted reports reinforce the notion that AD affects multiple sub-cellular, cellular, anatomical, and physiological systems at the same time but at varying degree between individuals. A major impediment remains provide a comprehensive view of all these systems and their interactions to manage its inherent complexity. HIGHLIGHTS - We propose a scoping review of hypotheses and theories for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) - Out of over 11,000 abstracts, we reviewed 105 articles, separated as having a single-focus or multi-factorial approach - The diversity of reports calls for an integrative view of AD in order to encompass its inherent complexity
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 | 0.167 | 0.368 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".