Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33490374›Full record

ReviewAIMS neuroscience2021

The biological pathways of Alzheimer disease: a review.

Marco Calabrò, Carmela Rinaldi, Giuseppe Santoro, Concetta Crisafulli

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

Review in AIMS neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
14.4field-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

133 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 248 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Footprint ofCurrent Alzheimer research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

73 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco CalabròDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Italy.
Carmela RinaldiDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Italy.
Giuseppe SantoroDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Italy.
Concetta CrisafulliDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Italy.
University of Messina · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alzheimer disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder, mainly affecting older people, which severely impairs patients' quality of life. In the recent years, the number of affected individuals has seen a rapid increase. It is estimated that up to 107 million subjects will be affected by 2050 worldwide. Research in this area has revealed a lot about the biological and environmental underpinnings of Alzheimer, especially its correlation with β-Amyloid and Tau related mechanics; however, the precise molecular events and biological pathways behind the disease are yet to be discovered. In this review, we focus our attention on the biological mechanics that may lie behind Alzheimer development. In particular, we briefly describe the genetic elements and discuss about specific biological processes potentially associated with the disease.

Indexed as

Alzheimer diseasebiological pathwaysimmune systemoxidative stress

Identifiers

PMID33490374
PMCPMC7815481
OpenAlexW3112246556

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.