Deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer’s disease – current status and next steps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires novel therapeutic approaches due to limited efficacy of current treatments. AREAS COVERED: This article explores AD as a manifestation of neurocircuit dysfunction and evaluates deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a potential intervention. Focusing on fornix-targeted stimulation (DBS-f), the article summarizes safety, feasibility, and outcomes observed in phase 1/2 trials, highlighting findings such as cognitive improvement, increased metabolism, and hippocampal growth. Topics for further study include optimization of electrode placement, and the role of stimulation-induced autobiographical-recall. Nucleus basalis of Meynert (DBS-NBM) DBS is also discussed and compared with DBS-f. Challenges with both DBS-f and DBS-NBM are identified, emphasizing the need for further research on optimal stimulation parameters. The article also reviews alternative DBS targets, including medial temporal lobe structures and the ventral capsule/ventral striatum. EXPERT OPINION: Looking ahead, a phase-3 DBS-f trial, and the prospect of closed-loop stimulation using EEG-derived biomarkers or hippocampal theta activity are highlighted. Recent FDA-approved therapies and other neuromodulation techniques like temporal interference and low-intensity ultrasound are considered. The article concludes by underscoring the importance of imaging-based diagnosis and staging to allow for circuit-targeted therapies, given the heterogeneity of AD and varied stages of neurocircuit dysfunction.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".