Noradrenergic therapies in neurodegenerative disease: from symptomatic to disease modifying therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A feature shared by many different neurodegenerative diseases is early pathology and degeneration of the pontine locus coeruleus. The human locus coeruleus contains about 50 000 neurons and is the primary source of the neurotransmitter noradrenaline. We propose the hypothesis that noradrenergic drugs can have broad, transdiagnostic benefit in slowing or preventing the progression of neurodegenerative diseases. There are direct noradrenergic anti-inflammatory effects in vivo, with microglia and astrocytes regulated by adrenoreceptors, and noradrenergic influences on glymphatics. Noradrenaline loss is associated with a pro-inflammatory state, promoting further neurodegeneration. Noradrenergic neuron loss is associated with worsening of both amyloid and tau deposition in animal models. There may be indirect survival benefits arising from alleviating the prognostically detrimental features of apathy and impulsivity, and noradrenergic influences on other neurotransmitters. The evidence base we set out supports the need for clinical trials of noradrenergic treatments for disease-modification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".