Thirty Risk Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease Unified by a Common Neuroimmune–Neuroinflammation Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major obstacles confronting the formulation of a mechanistic understanding for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is its immense complexity-a complexity that traverses the full structural and phenomenological spectrum, including molecular, macromolecular, cellular, neurological and behavioural processes. This complexity is reflected by the equally complex diversity of risk factors associated with AD. However, more than merely mirroring disease complexity, risk factors also provide fundamental insights into the aetiology and pathogenesis of AD as a neurodegenerative disorder since they are central to disease initiation and subsequent propagation. Based on a systematic literature assessment, this review identified 30 risk factors for AD and then extended the analysis to further identify neuroinflammation as a unifying mechanism present in all 30 risk factors. Although other mechanisms (e.g., vasculopathy, proteopathy) were present in multiple risk factors, dysfunction of the neuroimmune-neuroinflammation axis was uniquely central to all 30 identified risk factors. Though the nature of the neuroinflammatory involvement varied, the activation of microglia and the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines were a common pathway shared by all risk factors. This observation provides further evidence for the importance of immunopathic mechanisms in the aetiopathogenesis of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".