ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports2021
A Proposal to Make Biomedical Research into Alzheimer's Disease More Democratic Following an International Survey with Researchers.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Against Over-reliance on PRISMA Guidelines for Meta-analytical Studies.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2024Article
- From Association to Intervention: The Alzheimer's Disease-Associated Processes and Targets (ADAPT) Ontology.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Review
- Alzheimer's research after full approval of lecanemab: impetus and variety.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2023Article
- Synthetic amyloid beta does not induce a robust transcriptional response in innate immune cell culture systems.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2022Article
- Are trailblazing trials for reducing cognitive decline putting the cart before the horse?Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTherapeutic research into Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been dominated by the amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH) since the 1990s. However, targeting amyloid in AD patients has not yet resulted in highly significant disease-modifying effects. Furthermore, other promising theories of AD etiology exist.
objectiveWe sought to directly investigate whether the ACH still dominates the opinions of researchers working on AD and explore the implications of this question for future directions of research.
methodsDuring 2019, we undertook an international survey promoted with the help of the Alzheimer's Association with questions on theories and treatments of AD. Further efforts to promote a similar study in 2021 did not recruit a significant number of participants.
results173 researchers took part in the 2019 survey, 22% of which held "pro-ACH" opinions, tended to have more publications, were more likely to be male, and over 60. Thus, pro-ACH may now be a minority opinion in the field but is nevertheless the hypothesis on which the most clinical trials are based, suggestive of a representation bias. Popular vote of all 173 participants suggested that lifestyle treatments and anti-tau drugs were a source of more therapeutic optimism than anti-amyloid treatments.
conclusionWe propose a more democratic research structure which increases the likelihood that promising theories are published and funded fairly, promotes a broader scientific view of AD, and reduces the larger community's dependence on a fragile economic model.
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.