Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21852788›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2011

The amyloid cascade hypothesis for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal for the development of therapeutics.

Eric Karran, Marc Mercken, Bart De Strooper

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 934 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
934citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

934 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Regional effects of gantenerumab on neuroimaging biomarkers in the DIAN-TU-001 trial.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

874 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eric KarranJanssen Research and Development, Neuroscience Therapeutic Area, Turnhoutseweg 30, 2340 Beerse, Belgium. eric.karran@gmail. com
Marc Mercken
Bart De Strooper

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The amyloid cascade hypothesis, which posits that the deposition of the amyloid-β peptide in the brain is a central event in Alzheimer's disease pathology, has dominated research for the past twenty years. Several therapeutics that were purported to reduce amyloid-β production or aggregation have failed in Phase III clinical testing, and many others are in various stages of development. Therefore, it is timely to review the science underpinning the amyloid cascade hypothesis, consider what type of clinical trials will constitute a valid test of this hypothesis and explore whether amyloid-β-directed therapeutics will provide the medicines that are urgently needed by society for treating this devastating disease.

Indexed as

Age of OnsetAlzheimer DiseaseAmyloid beta-PeptidesAnimalsBrain ChemistryClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDisease ProgressionHumansPlaque, AmyloidResearch DesignTreatment FailureAmyloid beta-Peptides

Identifiers

PMID21852788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.