Modulation of Oxidative Stress and Neuroinflammation by Cannabidiol (CBD): Promising Targets for the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease and the most common form of dementia globally. Although the direct cause of AD remains under debate, neuroinflammation and oxidative stress are critical components in its pathogenesis and progression. As a result, compounds like cannabidiol (CBD) are being increasingly investigated for their ability to provide antioxidant and anti-inflammatory neuroprotection. CBD is the primary non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid derived from Cannabis sativa. It has been found to provide beneficial outcomes in a variety of medical conditions and is gaining increasing attention for its potential therapeutic application in AD. CBD is not psychoactive and its lipophilic nature allows its rapid distribution throughout the body, including across the blood–brain barrier (BBB). CBD also possesses anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and neuroprotective properties, making it a viable candidate for AD treatment. This review outlines CBD’s mechanism of action, the role of oxidative stress and neuroinflammation in AD, and the effectiveness and limitations of CBD in preclinical models 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".