Sex‐dependent cholinergic effects on amyloid pathology: A translational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: About two-thirds of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) patients are women, who exhibit more severe pathology and cognitive decline than men. Whether biological sex causally modulates the relationship between cholinergic signaling and amyloid pathology remains unknown. METHODS: We quantified amyloid beta (Aβ) in male and female App-mutant mice with either decreased or increased cholinergic tone and examined the impact of ovariectomy and estradiol replacement in this relationship. We also investigated longitudinal changes in basal forebrain (cholinergic function) and Aβ in elderly individuals. RESULTS: We show a causal relationship between cholinergic tone and amyloid pathology in males and ovariectomized female mice, which is decoupled in ovary-intact and ovariectomized females receiving estradiol. In elderly humans, cholinergic loss exacerbates Aβ. DISCUSSION: Our findings emphasize the importance of reflecting human menopause in mouse models. They also support a role for therapies targeting estradiol and cholinergic signaling to reduce Aβ. HIGHLIGHTS: Cholinergic tone regulates amyloid beta (Aβ) pathology in males and ovariectomized female mice. Estradiol uncouples the relationship between cholinergic tone and Aβ. In elderly humans, cholinergic loss correlates with increased Aβ in both sexes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".