SynthesisWIREs mechanisms of disease
A Hierarchical Framework for In Vitro Models of Alzheimer's Disease.
Synthesis in WIREs mechanisms of disease. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a major global health challenge, with a high rate of clinical trial failures often attributed to the limited translational predictive value of traditional experimental models. In vitro systems, ranging from induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons to complex three-dimensional (3D) organoids, have emerged as promising alternatives to investigate disease mechanisms in a controlled experimental setting. However, their rapid expansion has generated fragmented nomenclature and heterogeneous classification schemes. In this systematic review, we propose a hierarchical framework that categorizes in vitro AD models according to their architectural complexity and the biological questions they are designed to address. We organize these platforms into four progressive tiers: genetically defined iPSC-derived cell-autonomous models, stimulus-based reductionist models, interaction-dependent neuron-glia co-cultures, and advanced multicellular 3D or neurovascular platforms. Our findings indicate that low complexity models (Tier 1 and Tier 2) are particularly suited to dissect cell-intrinsic genetic drivers and acute toxic signaling, but they often fail to capture the chronic multicellular feedback loops and vascular dysfunction characteristic of AD. In contrast, high-complexity systems (Tier 3 and Tier 4), including organ-on-chip platforms and vascularized organoids, provide the spatial and physiological context necessary to model neuroinflammation and network-level degeneration, although they present greater technical variability. Finally, we propose an integrative hierarchical strategy that aligns model selection with specific pathological questions. By linking cellular complexity with mechanistic objectives, this framework provides a structured roadmap to improve experimental rigor, facilitate cross-study comparability, and support the development of more predictive experimental models for AD.
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.