A pilot study of senolytics to improve cognition and mobility in older adults at risk for Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This single-arm study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and preliminary effects of two senolytic agents, Dasatinib and Quercetin (DQ), in older adults at risk of Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: Participants took 100 mg of Dasatinib and 1250 mg of Quercetin for two days every two weeks over 12 weeks. Recruitment rate, adverse events, absolute changes in functional outcomes, and percent changes in biomarkers were calculated. Spearman correlations between functional and biomarker outcomes were performed. FINDINGS: Approximately 10% of telephone-screened individuals completed the intervention (n = 12). There were no serious adverse events related to the intervention. Mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores non-significantly increased following DQ by 1.0 point (95% CI: -0.7, 2.7), but increased significantly by 2.0 points (95% CI: 0.1, 4.0) in those with lowest baseline MoCA scores. Mean percent change in tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), a key product of the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), non-significantly decreased following DQ by -3.0% (95% CI: -13.0, 7.1). Changes in TNF-α were significantly and inversely correlated with changes in MoCA scores (r = -0.65, p = 0.02), such that reductions in TNF- α were correlated with increases in MoCA scores. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests that intermittent DQ treatment is feasible and safe; data hint at potential functional benefits in older adults at risk of Alzheimer's disease. The observed reduction in TNF-α and its correlation with increases in MoCA scores suggests that DQ may improve cognition by modulating the SASP. However, there was not an appropriate control group. Data are preliminary and must be interpreted cautiously. FUNDING: National Institute on Ageing grants R21AG073886 and R33AG061456 funded this research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".