MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408534843 · doi:10.61784/jpmr3030

THE PATHOLOGICAL PATHWAY FOR THE PERSISTENCE OF AD SYMPTOMS AFTER THE REMOVAL OF AMYLOID PLAQUES

2025· article· en· W4408534843 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)PathologicalAmyloid (mycology)MedicinePathologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amyloid plaque has been an indicative hallmark for Alzheimer’s diseases (AD), however the removal of which has shown to be inefficient in altering the progression of disease; thus, the study will focus on the mechanism behind the persistence of AD. The study examines the causal relationships among Aβ, neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), cholinergic depletion, and excitotoxicity. Using secondary data from pre-existing studies, it is evidenced that Aβ causes cholinergic depletion, NFTs, and excitotoxicity through interacting with ChaT & nAChRs, IP3-K & GSK-3β, and NR1 subunit on NMDAR respectively; NFTs causes cholinergic depletion and excitotoxicity through mitochondrial dysfunction, and interaction with vGLUT respectively; while excitotoxicity causes NFTs through interaction with cdk5 and PP2A. It is concluded that the persistence of AD after Aβ removal is due to a positive feedback loop mechanism between NFTs and excitotoxicity, which causes the persistence of NFTs, cholinergic depletion, and excitotoxicity. However, the principle causative agent of AD’s progression remains undecidable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→