Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22782685›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2012

Positive argument for debate in J Neural Transmission: Alzheimer's disease: are we intervening too late? Yes, by years if not decades.

Thomas B Shea, Ruth Remington

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Thomas B SheaDepartments of Biological Sciences and Nursing, Center for Cellular Neurobiology and Neurodegeneration Research, UMass Lowell, Lowell, MA 01854, USA. thomas_shea@uml.edu
Ruth Remington

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ongoing debate as to whether we are or are not early enough in treatment for Alzheimer's disease presents distinct vantage points. Points expressed range from stressing the need for early preventive measures to highlighting the failure of "alternative" therapies, and concluding that we are unfortunately doing all that we can at present. Herein, we stress the worth of nutritional intervention, and review why such studies are often inherently compromised. We conclude that considerable education is needed to advance lifestyle modifications early enough to obtain their optimal effect, and instead of positioning "classical" interventions against "alternative" interventions, the combinations of both may impart maximal benefit. The introduction of novel detection methods at the earliest indications of cognitive impairment may provide a window of opportunity for initiation of preventative approaches.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsEarly DiagnosisAlzheimer DiseaseHumans

Identifiers

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.