ReviewZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2017
[Alzheimer's disease from Auguste Deter to the present : Progress, disappointments and open questions].
Review in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe present article aims to provide a short overview of the discovery history, conceptual development, as well as on current neurobiological and pharmacological research questions in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD). In view of the long hoped for but so far unachieved therapeutic breakthrough, this also includes a critical reflection of current research paradigms. MATERIAL AND
methodsStarting from the first case report described by Alois Alzheimer in 1906, the historical impact of his seminal discovery is reconstructed. Neurobiological research paradigms central to AD are discussed with respect to their relevance for modern biomarker-based diagnostic approaches as well as to the development of innovative disease-modifying drug therapies.
resultsOriginally conceived as a rare presenile form of dementia it was not until the 1970s that AD was granted an orphan disease status. The biomedical deconstruction of senility and the introduction of new research methods enabled the nosological unification of AD with the concept of senile dementia which, in turn led to a global flowering of AD research. In the 1990s the amyloid cascade hypothesis was introduced as the leading research paradigm of AD. In the following years this stimulated the development of a huge variety of innovative biomarker-based diagnostic and disease-modifying pharmacological approaches.
conclusionAgainst the background of the recent failures of many clinical drug trials, the relevance of the amyloid cascade hypothesis to explain the etiology of sporadic AD is increasingly being questioned. On the one hand, this leaves the question of the central etiological paradigm unresolved and on the other hand it stimulated a debate on alternative etiological models which might lead to fruitful consequences for future research strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.