Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30349969›Full record

ReviewActa neuropathologica2018

Questions concerning the role of amyloid-β in the definition, aetiology and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.

Gary P Morris, Ian A Clark, Bryce Vissel

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Acta neuropathologica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

119 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 206 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Role of c-Abl in Alzheimer's Disease: Guilty or not Guilty?Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gary P MorrisCentre for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ian A ClarkBiomedical Sciences and Biochemistry, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Bryce VisselCentre for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Bryce.vissel@uts.edu.au.
University of Technology Sydney · AUAustralian National University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dominant hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) aetiology, the neuropathological guidelines for diagnosing AD and the majority of high-profile therapeutic efforts, in both research and in clinical practice, have been built around one possible causal factor, amyloid-β (Aβ). However, the causal link between Aβ and AD remains unproven. Here, in the context of a detailed assessment of historical and contemporary studies, we raise critical questions regarding the role of Aβ in the definition, diagnosis and aetiology of AD. We illustrate that a holistic view of the available data does not support an unequivocal conclusion that Aβ has a central or unique role in AD. Instead, the data suggest alternative views of AD aetiology are potentially valid, at this time. We propose that an unbiased way forward for the field, beyond the current Aβ-centric approach, without excluding a role for Aβ, is required to come to an accurate understanding of AD dementia and, ultimately, an effective treatment.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseAmyloid beta-PeptidesAnimalsHumansAmyloid beta-Peptides

Identifiers

PMID30349969
PMCPMC6208728
OpenAlexW2896396037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.