Talk:Alzheimer's disease/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

uicides risk

There is nothing about increased (if true) number of suicides by AD patients. Interesting is also statistic distribution by countries and RF. Most patients at early stages write death letter which stage reverse this statistic? [1] If someone is expert please add content or just point to links. There is no word about suicide in article. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Prevention-related research

At http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301102712.htm. Not suitable for modifying the article, but interesting. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

category:amyloidosis

Would someone please put [[category:amyloidosis]] into the bottom of this article. 137.186.47.81 (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Prevalence?

Does the following fit somewhere in the article:

About 5 million Americans already have Alzheimer's disease, and numbers are expected to soar to 15 million as Baby Boomers age. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-04-10/Alzheimers-Elly-Lilly-tracker/54159438/1 Ottawahitech (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Prevalence certainly has a place, but that's neither a wp:MEDRS, nor wp:WORLDWIDE. The WHO trendline is still reasonably current. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

New clues on how Alzheimer`s spreads

Can someone please add information from this Zeenews article: http://zeenews.india.com/news/health/diseases/new-clues-on-how-alzheimer-s-spreads_15482.html

I also found the following additional information but don't know where to place it without getting into editing wars:

Margaret Thatcher and other famous Alzheimer sufferers:

http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Famous+faces+of+Alzheimer's/G3808?csp=ftsmpg

Meryl Streep portrays Margaret thatcher:

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/geoff-cox-s-guide-to-new-dvds-the-iron-lady-mission-impssible-1-3762291

Critics are divided over a new Alzheimer's awareness TV ad:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/belgian-alzheimers-psa-controversy-ad-video_n_1435235.html Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Alzheimer's prevention?

Of interest -- probably too soon for any changes to article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57435037/groundbreaking-$100m-alzheimers-study-to-focus-on-1-colombian-family/ -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I just don't get how it can help in anything but the very long term, because it could take decades before results are available, let alone the drug. I'm also concerned by the statement that "AD can be prevented." No it can't.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, something will have to go in, as a lot of people are betting the barn here on a very expensive trial. Back in 2007 bapineuzumab trials had to be stopped because they caused brain inflammation brain vascular water leakage in AD patients with plaques. Okay, so now, the plan is to give the very similar crenezumab to Colombians who don't yet have plaques, but who have a rare gene that should give them Alzheimer's disease. And if it's preventive for THEM, then perhaps it will be also preventive in people who don't have this gene, which is nearly everybody who is going to get Alzheimer's disease. Hmmmm. But what if the mechanisms for genetic vs. nongenetic AD are different? I guess we'll find out!

I had to cringe at the puffing about curing AD by 2025 that went out today, though. It put me in mind of Nixon's War on Cancer and his War on Drugs and Bush's plan to go to Mars by 2019. Riiiiight. Mission Accomplished! SBHarris 01:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I know, but I just have to say: curing Alzheimer's will probably be vastly easier than curing cancer. Cancer is really hundreds of distinct diseases -- Alzheimer's is probably one, and at most a few. Looie496 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes prevention easier, but curing Alzheimer's has its own unique difficulties, as it involves replacing dead brain cells. Even if we found some way to halt the disease in its tracks, the ability of the brain to regrow and rewire is limited, so this is the same problem as we have in stroke recovery, but worse. And even if we completely accomplish that, we may not be able to recover memories. So (for example) even if figure out how to completely fix your computer after lightning hits it, if you had no backup, the non-generic data that was stored there, is gone. SBHarris 20:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What I had in mind was curing it at an early stage, after amyloid has begun to accumulate but before there is major cell loss. Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

External Links

I'd like to have these two external links added for Alzheimer's disease. Both related to the dominantly inherited form.

• Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN)
• Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) Expanded Registry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuadrc (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't want a link farm of data. How is this notable? What does it add to the article? I'll take a look too, but give us some more info.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Logopenic progressive aphasia

Logopenic progressive aphasia should be included in this article, as Logopenic progressive aphasia is the progressive aphasia related to dementia including Alzhiemers disease, which has been described in the recent classification of primary progressive aphasias. Due to my own developmental communication disability I have my own word finding issues, so i will have to leave it to other editors to add the information to this article. You may find some of the related research paper collections listed on my user page a useful source of supporting citations. dolfrog (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in disagreement with you, but unless I'm badly mistaken, it's not a sign of AD, it really is a different type of AD. Again, I've just given a top level approach. Also, you have to divorce yourself from what afflicts you and an article here. This article is a "Featured Article", which you probably know means it's one of the top articles on Wikipedia. I noticed that a lot of editors are very conservative about adding information, unless it's well sourced. Lots of people watch this article, and within a week, I bet, we'll have a consensus and a lot of supporting citations to add an possibly important part of the AD story.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole body of citations, and if the article does not keep pace with research then the so called "Featured Article" status is meaningless. The reason why Logopenic progressive aphasia became part of primary aphasia research was to identify aphasia in those who have AD, and other progressive illnesses not included in Semantic Dementia and Progressive nonfluent aphasia I have just created an initial collection of research articles online at PubMed (sources) which you may find useful. This is your article, I am just a passing observer, trying to bring the information up to date, best you do it your way. dolfrog (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I just read the logopenic progressive aphasia article and then skimmed over the Curr. Opin. Neurol. article about it, and I'm having difficulty understanding how strong the link between LPA and AD is -- is there a reasonably strong case that LPA appears often in AD, or merely some evidence that it appears sometimes? The answer affects whether it should be mentioned in this article. If it is mentioned, it needs to be mentioned in a way that readers can understand. Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the aphasia articles require improvement to be inline with research, and if I had any copy editing skills i would revise them myself, due to my own developmental communication issues, I can only source the information (research) with regard to Wikipedia editing. I have created an online PubMed research paper collection for this discussion, which i linked to in my last post.( and i will add to when i come accross more papers as i research wider related issues. dolfrog (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Criteria subsection of the main Diagnosis section of the article is full of supporting research conflicts, which means currently it is complete nonsense. I would suggest you have look at Castellani RJ, Rolston RK, Smith MA (2010). "Alzheimer disease". Dis Mon. 56 (9): 484–546. doi:10.1016/j.disamonth.2010.06.001. PMC 2941917. PMID 20831921. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and more especially table 1 which summaries "NINCDS/ADRDA clinical criteria for AD" very well in lay terms. dolfrog (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hippocampus PH - Early dignostic technique

A study from Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease outlines a new, quick technique to diagnose pre-Alzheimer and Alzheimer disease patients with pH and four chemical changes. - RoyBoy 03:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Potential for diagnosis before symptom onset

See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611134229.htm -- may be of interest if it stands up. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Cause of Alzheimer`s disease: Inflammation hypothesis

Inflammation induced plaques in AD mice

Inflammation induced plaques in wild type mice

Comparison between inflammation induced plaques in mice with amyloid plaques in AD patients

Accumulating evidence suggests that neuroinflammation, inflammation mediated by the brain’s innate immune system, contributes to Alzheimer`s neuropathology and exacerbates the course of the disease. Recently, researchers could induce Alzheimer`s-like changes in the brains of wild-type (non-transgenic) mice, by promoting chronic inflammation [1]. This work strongly supports the view that neuroinflammation may represent an early event in the etiology of Alzheimer`s, preceding formation of plaques and tangles, and that chronic systemic inflammation may represent a major risk factor for development of the disease in humans.

[1] Link to the original data (free access): Systemic immune challenges trigger and drive Alzheimer-like neuropathology in mice.

Keywords: Alzheimer`s disease, cause, infection, inflammation, a-beta, amyloid, plaque AlzFighter (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting work, and it's great to have pictures like that, since one of the hardest things for writing Wikipedia articles is finding good pictures that we have permission to use. But regarding the information, our practice for medical-related articles is to try to reference our material to high-quality secondary sources, such as review papers, rather than to primary research publications -- see WP:MEDRS. We do that mainly in order to reduce the tendency for editors to "cherry-pick" sources that support their points of view -- as you no doubt know, it is possible in this field to find publications somewhere to support almost any idea one can imagine. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Looie496. Good point! So, here it is: In accordance with a meta-analysis of 17 epidemiological studies on anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 2, already in 1996 it was proposed that inflammatory mediators may represent a driving force in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer`s disease (AD) 3. This view was further supported by retrospective epidemiological studies in humans 4,5,6]. Moreover, genome wide association studies (GWAS), utilizing an unbiased screen to search for genes underlying development of sporadic Alzheimer`s, have identified genes of the immune system involved in etiology of AD [7]. However, first experimental evidence that chronic inflammation may represent an early and causative event in the development of AD was provided only recently 1, see above], strongly supporting revised ADAPT (Alzheimer`s Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial) hypothesis, that argues for a beneficial role of anti-inflammatory drugs only in the early, asymptomatic, phases of the disease [8]. Taken together, these data reinforce the efforts for urgent revision of the current view on the etiology of sporadic AD [9,10]. AlzFighter (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(I tweaked your markup above - single square brackets are used for external links, double for wikilinks.) Most of that looks usable with some wordsmithing, but is there a review yet published that looks at [1]? While it certainly appears to be an interesting result, it was only published last week. Wikipedia is wp:NOTNEWS, we can wait for a published review. Otherwise we run the risk of injecting our own assessesment of the importance and correctness of the result. This is a very highly visible wikipedia article, of "Top" importance and "Featured article" class. It ranks second on google after only the corresponding A.D.A.M. article. We must be cautious about how we change it.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Valid point LeadSongDog! Yes, let`s wait for the reaction of the field, and once the review is out, I`ll post it here. Stay well! AlzFighter (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested new alternative name: "Type III Diabetes"

A new article published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease refers to AD as "Type III Diabetes", due to the fact that it appears to function the same way as other forms of diabetes:

"Brain insulin resistance (diabetes) is very much like regular diabetes,” de la Monte said. “Since the underlying problems continue to be just about the same, we believe that the development of new therapies would be applicable for all types of diabetes, including Alzheimer’s disease, which we refer to as Type III diabetes.” She continued, “This study points out that once AD is established, therapeutic efforts should target several different pathways — not just one. The reason is that a positive feedback loop gets going, making AD progress. We have to break the vicious cycle. Restoring insulin responsiveness and insulin depletion will help, but we need to reduce brain stress and repair the metabolic problems that cause the brain to produce toxins.”

--BRIAN0918 18:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think it would be premature to include any coverage of that in the article, until we see that it has received some attention in the field. I get the sense that "type III diabetes" is more an attempt to be provocative than a serious suggestion. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Looie this is not main stream at this point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And the citation hardly meets WP:MEDRS. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Electric Thrombosis

Lately, scientists published another new hypothesis concerning the mitochondrial dysfunction due to problematic inner mitochondrial membrane. Their hypothesis is based on the fact that the inner mitochondrial membrane is a natural superconductor. Subsequently, any case of inappropriate intra-structure is followed by high level transmembrane proton concentration, blocking actually the natural pathway of producing ATP. Due to the action of complexes during the flow of electrons, protons are unequally distributed on both sides of the inner mitochondrial membrane. Therefore, the mitochondrial matrix becomes poorer in protons. Due to the action of the respiratory chain complexes, the energy of electrons is temporarily stored in the form of electrochemical energy potential. This form of energy will be restored via the returning of protons through particular channels of the internal membrane in the matrix and will be used to cover energy needs. In other words, the electrochemical potential, or proton-stimulatory power, corresponds to the tendency of the protons to be restored to their initial locations, in order to achieve equilibrium and reset the imbalance of the protons. The size of this energy is proportional to the size of the difference between the concentrations of protons on both sides of the membrane. While the final reaction in the respiratory chain is taken place, when ‘electric thromboses’ occurs, the superconductivity of electrons is destroyed and no pair of electrons are transferred. It is obvious that the existence of electric complexes can be either temporary or permanent, with adverse impacts on nerve cells.
KantasisG

Thanks, I didn't read all that but the paper you reference has not been cited by any other researchers according to ISI Web of Knowledge. We tend to use secondary/independent/review articles because we're an encyclopedia and we can't mention every single study. See WP:MEDRS for more details. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Alzheimer's a form of diabetes?

An original research article published in New Scientist on 3 Sept 2012 proposes that mechanisms leading to Alzheimer's are essentially the same as in type 2 diabetes: [2]. The article even merited an editorial: [3]. New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed journal although I believe it fulfils the WP:RS criteria. Since the theory has been picked up by various websites across the Internet (e.g.: [4]), is anyone able to judge whether this info should find its way to the Wikipedia article? kashmiri 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

New Scientist is not WP:MEDRS. I've seen that story all over the internet, and it fails on so many levels. I'm highly skeptical, and until there's a lot of secondary articles published in real peer-reviewed journals, so should you be. Being picked up on alternative med websites is like anti-MEDRS. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't characterize this as a mainstream view, but there are much better sources than the New Scientist article, which is not, by the way, an original research article. It is essentially a news article. The ideas discussed there can be found in MEDRS-compatible form at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769828/. I am not actually suggesting that we make use of this in our article -- I believe it has very limited acceptance in the community; I'm just pointing to the relevant literature here. There have been at least a couple of dozen recent scientific research papers dealing with these issues in one way or another. Looie496 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I read that article previously, and I stand by something I wrote online about it. Calling AD Type 3 Diabetes would be like neuropathy Type 3 Diabetes. *IF* we could show a causal link (and not some correlation, which might be convincing), AD might be no more than a symptom, no different than cardiovascular disease, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic retinopathy, or any other diseases that result from long term metabolic issues from increased blood glucose levels. I think we're years away from calling AD another form diabetes. Intriguing articles. But I'd hate for us to add this highly speculative point of view without a lot of consensus in the neurobiology community. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Last I heard the cause of Alzheimer's was unknown. So pretty much everything in the article is an educated guess. Is there any information in this article that is based on causal link? Going by that standard this entire article should be erased. SkepticalofSkeptics (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's called the Nirvana fallacy, blowing up the article because the world's great scientists haven't found the cause and the cure. The article eliminates numerous failed hypotheses and proposed "cures" like ginkgo. It also discusses some of the better known hypotheses that haven't actually been dismissed at this time. Type 3 Diabetes is a hypotheses that is early in the formation, and it sounds just a bit like woo. That's all. Maybe it will develop. And everything in the article is not "an educated guess," unless by "educated guess" we mean top neurobiologists spending years of research and publishing in peer reviewed journals. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes remember reading about the type 3 diabetes thing 10 years ago. Havn't really seen anything since. Do you have a review on the topic from the last 5 years that gives it emphasis? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Already mentioned above, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769828/ Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but I only today came across this:

A 2011 review found that "metabolic and vascular dysfunctions contribute to and exacerbate AD pathology", and indicates the development of insulin resistance as an early stage contributor to the disease. It is a very persuasive piece, that seems to merit discussion in our article.

• Murray IV, Proza JF, Sohrabji F, Lawler JM (2011 Jul 1). "Vascular and metabolic dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease: a review". Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 236 (7): 772–82. doi:10.1258/ebm.2011.010355. PMID 21680755. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Edit request on 17 October 2012 (Can we say coconut oil may be a cure)

Current research shows successful reversal of symptoms in some cases where a small amount of coconut oil was eaten daily. The brain cells exhibiting the deficient ability to utilize glucose are able to utilize keytones which are produced in the liver from medium chain triglycerides. Coconut oil and palm kernel oil are very promising for mediating the symptoms of Alzheimer's. This revises the statement in the opening paragraph that there is no known cure to one reflecting that a minor change in diet can produce a potential reversal of symptoms in a sustained way. http://www.anh-usa.org/coconut-oil-and-alzheimer%E2%80%99s-disease/ http://www.coconutketones.com/scireferences.html Mr.peterbassett (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you review WP:MEDRS. We would only add information that was published in peer reviewed articles, and even then only after published in high quality meta reviews in secondary research. What you are providing isn't even close to a high quality peer reviewed article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SkepticalRaptor. However, I wonder if maybe it could be mentioned on Alzheimer's disease clinical research. Lova Falk talk 09:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure if only it was truly drug development. At the moment it looks like nowhere close to it. kashmiri 12:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have set the {{edit semi-protected}} request to "answered" as there is an active discussion involving multiple autoconfirmed users. Feel free to continue this discussion to build consensus. If a consensus is reached, one of the involved editors can make the necessary edits. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Amyloid beta, amyloid-beta, beta amyloid or beta-amyloid?

Watchers of this article might be interested in the question linked above at WT:MCB. Whatever the outcome of that discussion, I think it would be best to refer to the biomolecule in question consistently in this article. Currently, all four formulations of the name are used. Emw (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Following support for "beta-amyloid" at the discussion thread linked above, I've standardized the article to use that formulation of the peptide name (diff). Before that edit, the representation of the four variations on that peptide name in this article were: "amyloid beta": 4 instances, "amyloid-beta": 2 instances, "beta-amyloid": 11 instances, "beta amyloid": 2 instances. For consistency, I also changed uses of "Aβ" to "βA". Emw (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be backwards, as discussed. The article amyloid beta was moved to beta amyloid without explanation in 2008. The references cited at that article overwhelmingly favour "Aβ" to "βA". LeadSongDog come howl! 01:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Random comments put in the wrong location

Two comments placed at the top of this page:

This disease is characterized by memory loss and is common in the elderly, causing many damages to the person and their family group because it is a disease that is not preventable often causes confusion in the people around the patient and distress to the person affected as this looks to those around you as strangers.

Therefore we as social workers educational campaigns for members of the family find the necessary help to these people and not feel alone with this disease often caused sadness and anxiety in people in the patient.

I have no clue what to do with them. I'd just delete them, but maybe that's kind of rude. So it's here for your reading pleasure. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that you've given them a section, I guess they sooner or later will be archived. Lova Falk talk 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed Category:Senescence

Throughout the article, it is stated that AD isn't age-related. And it isn't, since there are cases of atypical AD which starts at the age of 40 or even 35. I removed the category, but I guess clicking on the Hot Cat tool doesn't allow an edit summary, so I put it here. Sorry about that. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My bad. I was confident that Alzheimer's was aging-associated. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Lots of people think it is, but it's a neurodegenerative disorder with an unknown pathophysiology. So, stay-tuned. Maybe there will be a sub-type that is age-related. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to express some discomfort at that way of putting it. There is obviously a very strong correlation between age and the incidence of AD. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we know the old adage of not conflating causation with correlation. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

When you have a strong correlation between A and B, there are three possible explanations: (1) A causes B; (2) B causes A; (3) some other factor C causes both A and B. If we apply that here, we see that there are three possible explanations for the strong correlation between AD and aging: (1) AD causes aging; (2) aging causes AD; (3) some other factor C causes both aging and AD. It is left as an exercise for the reader to decide which of these makes most sense. Looie496 (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but at that point, we've got original research. Throughout the article we have cites that support statements that it's not age-related, which was my original point at the top of this thread. So, if we're going to make big changes, then we need to rewrite many parts of the article. Moreover, I think senescence is not the word I'd use. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify that I don't actually have any problems with the current state of the article. If it explicitly said AD is not age related, as you do here, I would be unhappy about that, because I would see it as misleading; but it doesn't. The article does make it clear that AD is not simply a normal part of aging -- a very important point and completely correct. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I only want to bring to your notice, in case you decide to categorize AD as age-related, that the current systematization of the senescence category doesn't include aging-associated diseases, but instead links to aging-associated diseases as a subcategory. Regarding your dialogue, that reasoning appears to me completely sound, but I wonder if you could be arguing on the basis of terminology alone. “The point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.” It might be appropriate to mention in this discussion that AD doesn't develop as part of the course of progeria, but neither does hyperopia and a host of other pathologies correlated with ordinary senescence. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just an argument that "progeria" is not a perfect mimic of aging (which it isn't-- it doesn't look like aging for cancer incidence, either).

Look, aging is a far better risk for AD than smoking is for lung cancer. At some point in human aging, dementia becomes more probable than non-dementia (and I can't think of any group of smokers who are more likely to get lung cancer than not-- yet we certainly say that lung cancer is "smoking related"). For those over 85 (taken as a whole) it's more probable to be demented than non-demented if you are Hispanic or black (roughly 60% in both cases): See here for example. It's about 30% for Caucasians, but remember, this is all persons over 85 and it's going to be even higher for advanced ages. I can't point to an online source for good numbers for various specific ages over 85, but most data suggests that the new incidence of Alzheimer's disease doesn't stop increasing at advanced ages. At worst it doubles for roughly every five years of age in this range (90's). See the 90+ study. In the latter study, prevalence was already almost 50% in woman at 90 (less in men), with new cases of dementia going from 12.7% a year in those 90-94 to 21.2% a year among those 95-99 and ultimately to 40.7% a year in those 100 and older. By then, we're certainly over the top as to what's most likely. It really doesn't matter than most people don't live to 95-- we're interested in your risk of AD if you do. Risk was 48-61% of being demented (depending on how defined) at age 95+ in this Swedish study: here

That age-related increase has to catch up with you sooner or later as you age, in the sense that at some age under 100, Alzheimer's (which accounts for about 75% of dementia) is going to be more common than not, even if the rate of increased prevalence slows (as other studies suggest, though no study suggests that it stops and the demented fraction stays constant after that). So how do we define "normal"? If we simply refuse to define any health state we don't like, from lack of mobility to dementia, as "normal", no matter how common it becomes with age, then the idea that no disease is part of "normal" aging becomes as self-definingly true as the "no true Scotsman" argument. But that's not very interesting, since even if only 5% of people were disease-free at 105, we'd just define that small fraction as "normal" and still say that disease is not normally a part of aging (voila).

I'm not buying that. Personally, I think a good argument can be made that anything that becomes more likely than not, with age, is an expected (albeit not inevitable) part of aging. Whether you want to call it "normal" or not, is up to you.SBHarris 03:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why does "retrogenesis" redirect here?

I am trying to find out what "retrogenesis" means. It redirects to this page, but there is no explanation or mention on the page. 81.157.179.37 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick web search reveals that: Retrogenesis is a relatively new term coined by Dr. Barry Reisburg after many years of observing and investigating Alzheimer’s disease/dementia. The technical definition is: “the process by which degenerative mechanisms reverse in the order of acquisition in normal development." There are reputable sources for the concept, such as PMID 12184509, but nobody has yet written a Wikipedia article about it, so an editor created the redirect with the idea that it is better than nothing. Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Inflammation again

Currently all over the news, a large original study is associating a TREM2 mutation (denoted rs75932628-T) with AD incidence, then noting that it affects inflammation processes and concluding that myeloid cell inflammation is an early step in AD pathology. While this paper is not itself usable, there will no doubt be reviews soon that discuss it.

• Thorlakur Jonsson, Hreinn Stefansson, Stacy Steinberg, Ingileif Jonsdottir, Palmi V. Jonsson, Jon Snaedal, Sigurbjorn Bjornsson, Johanna Huttenlocher, Allan I. Levey, James J. Lah, Dan Rujescu, Harald Hampel, Ina Giegling, Ole A. Andreassen, Knut Engedal, Ingun Ulstein, Srdjan Djurovic, Carla Ibrahim-Verbaas, Albert Hofman, M. Arfan Ikram, Cornelia M van Duijn, Unnur Thorsteinsdottir, Augustine Kong, Kari Stefansson (2012 November 14). "Variant of TREM2 associated with the risk of Alzheimer's disease" (PDF). NEJM. 368 (2): 107–116. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1211103. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

LeadSongDog come howl! 16:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear LeadSongDog, you may want to look at a new Nature review on late-onset AD and inflammation as a trigger of the pathology. http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nrneurol.2012.236.html AlzFighter (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

...and here are 3 more papers on the same topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23046210 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22162727 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22747753

69.116.7.33 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

proposed revision to Alzheimer's disease

In addition to, or even just revising the present article:

Alzheimer’s disease and Dementia are often falsely accused of being interchangeable. Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia, however, the causes of Alzheimer’s make the differentiation a bit more evident. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common neurodegenerative progressive disease among other types of dementia. When compared to other types of dementia, 53% of dementia cases are Alzheimer’s disease. Inevitable aging occurs in everyone’s natural, daily life however, 5-15% of people will develop Alzheimer’s disease.

Alzheimer’s disease is a form of dementia in which tangles and plagues consisting of beta-amyloid, build up and interfere with normal neuronal functioning in the brain. Many associate Alzheimer’s with the elderly, however, there are actually two types of Alzheimer’s disease in which one can also affect those younger than 65 years old.

Sporadic, or late-onset, affects people 65 years and older. This type of Alzheimer’s is much more common in that 85% of the cases of Alzheimer’s disease are “sporadic.” There is also no apparent cause for this type of Alzheimer’s, although researchers have found that “the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene on chromosome 19 is recognized as a major risk factor for the development of late-onset, sporadic AD [and] possessing one or two copies of the ε4 variant substantially increases the risk of developing sporadic AD” (Bilbul & Schipper, 2011).

Familial, or early-onset, affects people younger than 65 years old. Though this type of Alzheimer’s is not as common, 10-15% of Alzheimer’s cases, are “familial.” This type of Alzheimer’s disease is hereditary in origin. Mutations in the presenilin 1 and 2 genes are found to cause early-onset, familial AD.

Common symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease may closely resemble other types of dementia but symptoms are usually behaviorally distinct. “Neuropsychiatric behavioral disturbances, including agitation, aggression, wandering, depression, apathy, and withdrawal, are common in AD and cause distress to the patient and caregiver. Anxiety, including fear of being left alone, is common in AD patients and increases with dementia severity” (Zec & Burkett, 2008). As the disease progresses and becomes more severe, symptoms such as “delusions, hallucinations,and affective disturbances (Kavanagh, Gaudig, Van Baelen, Adami, Delgado, Guzman & Schäuble, 2011) may also take place. It has been reported that the “total number of behavioral problems in AD patients increased significantly with increased cognitive impairment” (Zec & Burkett, 2008).

Dementia and other subtypes of dementia (Alzheimer’s, Lewy-Body, Multi-Infarct) are not curable at this point in time, however, there are many steps one can take to improve cognition which include pharmacological and nonpharmacological actions. Non Pharmacological actions may include: cognitive training, brain training games, cognitive rehabilitation, implicit learning, cognitive stimulation therapy, and reality orientation (Ballard, Khan, Clack & Corbett, 2011). Pharmacological actions may include taking medications such as: Cholinesterase inhibitors,memantine, and vitamin E supplements (Zec & Burkett, 2008). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welc0701 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be mostly information that is already in the article. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Amyloid hypothesis

The Amyloid hypothesis section is extremely outdated and does not use terminology that is consistant with current literature (e.g., beta-amyloid instead of amyloid-beta). Additionally, it makes no mention of the effects of metals or that soluble oligomers of Ab are considered to be the toxic species now. I am willing to make these changes but I have other commitments I must fulfill first pushing back my ability to change this towards June-July.

Nbx909 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Cannabinoids

Hello, Would like to see some changes in this article regarding the following sentence:

"Because AD cannot be cured and is degenerative, the sufferer relies on others for assistance."

This is no more true, AD could be treated successful with Cannabis:

Marijuana linked to preventing and treating Alzheimer's disease Alzheimer's disease is the leading cause of dementia among the elderly, and with the ever-increasing size of this population, cases of Alzheimer's disease are expected to triple over the next 50 years. Consequently, the development of treatments that slow or halt the disease progression have become imperative to both improve the quality of life for patients as well as reduce the health care costs attributable to Alzheimer's disease. Here, we demonstrate that the active component of marijuana, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), competitively inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) as well as prevents AChE-induced amyloid β-peptide (Aβ) aggregation, the key pathological marker of Alzheimer's disease. Computational modeling of the THC-AChE interaction revealed that THC binds in the peripheral anionic site of AChE, the critical region involved in amyloidgenesis.

Compared to currently approved drugs prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of Aβ aggregation, and this study provides a previously unrecognized molecular mechanism through which cannabinoid molecules may directly impact the progression of this debilitating disease.

That information is based on in vitro studies. We have MANY in vitro interventions for Alzheimer disease. The difficulty has been translating those in vitro results into real results for patients.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.140.231 (talk • contribs)

I agree in vitro evidence for hundreds of compound have been shown to modulate amyloid-beta and/or AChE activity. For amyloid-beta at least, this doesn't exactly correlate to a cure in vivo and in human drug trials for various reasons. Nbx909 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Inflammation as a trigger and driver of AD pathology

Would anybody, PLEASE, include in the main article that the inflammation, due to infection, disease, or injury, can trigger and potently drive the alzheimer's pathology! The idea is present in the field from 1996, but only now, after failure of all big clinical trials on Abeta, scientists are turning to alternative views! live scientific discussion on the subject you can follow here: http://www.alzforum.org/res/for/journal/detail.asp?liveID=207 AlzFighter (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We only use medically reliable sources to support statements. And a roundtable like that one, although interesting, does not provide us with anything but speculation. Until such time it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, we should wait. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

dear SkepticalRaptor, it is good to be skeptical but have you seen comment above. The hypothesis from 1996 is revived by a peer-reviewed manuscript in Nature Reviews Neurology, here the link (again)- http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nrneurol.2012.236.html

all relevant observations in human patients and experimental support for such a view are cited there, and the roundtable (the link above) will further discuss these data and inflammation theory of AD... AlzFighter Jr.217.162.187.99 (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Type 3 Diabetes hypothesis?

That was first proposed back in 2005 and seems to be gaining traction. Has no one else heard of it? See this article and esp its embedded links: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/10/alzheimers-junk-food-catastrophic-effect

and its embedded links, such as: http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2005/12_15/2_advances_medicine01_21.html

http://www.rhodeislandhospital.org/wtn/Page.asp?PageID=WTN000249

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528805.800-food-for-thought-eat-your-way-to-dementia.html

Phantom in ca (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We need reliable references. Have heard of it of course but it has not really gained traction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into the "type 3 diabetes" naming question, it does seem there are MEDRS available for the diabetes:AD connection, e.g. PMID 22801434 and PMID 22411248. There should be some mention of it. Far better to address it here than in Sugar#Health effects. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

We often use an article hierarchy where we have a main article which summarizes each sub area. Than we have subarticles that deal with specific topic in greater detail than what can be done in the main article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

New vaccine for Alzheimers in clinical trials - ref. reuters

Spanish doctor Cacabelos talks during news conference presenting preventive and therapeutic vaccine against Alzheimer's disease in Madrid

Spanish doctor Ramon Cacabelos talks during a news conference presenting a preventive and therapeutic vaccine against Alzheimer's disease that was developed by Spanish scientists in Madrid January 17, 2013. According to Cacabelos, the EB-101 vaccine has been proven efficient when applied to transgenic mice, and can prevent and reverse the neuropathology of Alzheimer's disease in a significant manner. REUTERS/Andrea Comas (SPAIN - Tags: HEALTH SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY) CREDIT: REUTERS PUBLISHED DATE: 01/17/2013 http://www.trust.org/alertnet/multimedia/pictures/detail.dot?mediaInode=0ba35807-a362-454f-bd9d-84db27bbb134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.156.83 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

vcite or cite?

In multiple citations in the article, is vcite a typo for cite? -- 86.151.158.140 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It is faster and thus why we use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I had assumed that vcite was a typo. According to this search, this article is the only place in Wikipedia that vcite is mentioned. -- 86.162.207.120 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"vcite" is short for "Vancouver cite". It is a system of templates that use Vancouver-style referencing rather than Wikipedia house style, as the {{cite journal}} series of templates does. See Help:Citation Style Vancouver for more information. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles that use {{vcite journal}}, as shown by this search. It's a stripped-down equivalent to {{cite journal}} with fewer linkages for speed. On articles like Alzheimer's disease with 200+ citations, it can make a real difference. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction with another article

This article contradicts Health effects of tobacco which claims that "Evidence suggests that non-smokers are up to twice as likely as smokers to develop Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease." This article claims that "Smoking is a significant AD risk factor." This is a clear contradiction. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the tobacco article is out of date; that statement is cited to a review that is over 10 years old.

For the statement here, we cite a review from 2010 which specifically controlled for tobacco industry affiliation. It concluded:

For the last two decades, the tobacco industry has been actively funding research that supports the position that cigarette smoking protects against AD, and for the past two decades, the scientific literature has reported conflicting results as to the direction of the association between smoking and AD. Consequently, older smokers and their health care providers have been unaware that smoking is a modifiable risk factor for AD. There is an association between tobacco industry affiliation and the conclusions of individual studies and, probably, review papers of AD. Controlling for industry affiliation, study design and other factors, smoking is not protective against AD; it is a significant and substantial risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.

I see that the relevant section of the tobacco article has been tagged for expert attention since September; I will make a mental note to update those bits at some point. Maralia (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Inflammation-induced axonopathy

Could you please update the section Cause with a "new" potential cause - chronic inflammation. Here is the source: Deciphering the mechanism underlying late-onset Alzheimer disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23183882

if you are interested for more: http://www.ejnblog.org/2013/03/12/new-interview-rethinking-the-sequence-of-cellular-events-leading-to-alzheimers-disease/ AlzFighter (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We use secondary sources rather than primary ones, see WP:MEDRS; see also WP:RECENT. In short, a new proposition by two researchers, one that has not yet been reported in reliable secondary sources, would hardly merit anything more than a cursory mention, if at all, in an encyclopaedia. kashmiri 23:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

dear kashmiri, the article above fullfills all wiki guidlines: " Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."

it is systematic review, publishen in one of the top review journals, and is based on ample amount of primary data... finally it is a hypothesis and is not more or less worth than Abeta or Tau hypothesis alteady mentioned in the wiki article... dimitrije krstic (author of the mentioned article)

I didn't realise at first it is a review article. If so, the hypothesis does indeed merit a mention in the article, IMHO. Unless other editors object, please feel free to propose a wording on this page so that it can be discussed and included in the article. kashmiri 10:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose to add the following paragraph into section "2.4 Other hypotheses": It is also hypothesized that late-onset AD develops in part as a stress/injury induced axonopathy that leads to synaptic disconnection of affected brain areas and ultimately to neurodegeneration. This axonopathy could arise from intracellular changes induced by chronic inflammatory stress, physical damage (e.g. head injury), mutations affecting lipid metabolism or immune system of the brain, and/or through amyloid induced damage to neurons. dimitrije krstic 217.162.187.99 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested deletion in main section

In the third paragraph of the main section:

"As of 2012, more than 1000 clinical trials have been or are being conducted to find ways to treat the disease, but it is unknown if any of the tested treatments will work."

I suggest the segment "but it is unkown if any of the tested treatments will work" be deleted. Of course we don't know if they will work, otherwise we would not be testing them. That is the point of the trial. To see if they will work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelphieBoffin (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013

In the third paragraph of the main section:

"As of 2012, more than 1000 clinical trials have been or are being conducted to find ways to treat the disease, but it is unknown if any of the tested treatments will work."

I suggest the segment "but it is unkown if any of the tested treatments will work" be deleted. Of course we don't know if they will work, otherwise we would not be testing them. That is the point of the trial. To see if they will work.

SelphieBoffin (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done kashmiri 22:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Editors of Wikipedia

Are you scared that Abeta theory and/or Tau theory might not be correct??? Is this the reason why you are systematicaly deleting the data that supports an alternative view(s)??? Why are you scensoringnot inluding new ides which are presented in respected review journals??? wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with the aim to inform people, and you are deleting/hiding anything that has an work "inflammation" in it!!! AlzFighter (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I see nothing in recent edit history that would support your accusations. kashmiri 19:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please show diffs or at least provide a review article and the text it is supposed to support.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

AlzFighter has raised this a number of times previously. See Talk:Alzheimer's disease/Archive 10 and search for their name. In the discussions there, I don't see any conclusion that the ideas are unsuitable for the article. The article does mention inflammation under "Disease mechanism".-gadfium 23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

AlzFighter, if you want to see this in the article, you will probably have to put it there yourself. In a recent discussion you cited a paper from Nature Reviews Neurology, which is a very high-quality source. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to add one or two sentences, or perhaps a short paragraph, to the article saying that, for late-onset AD at least, inflammatory mechanisms have been proposed to play an important role. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Reference/Article Additions

I wanted to make some suggested additions to the article, as I cannot make any direct edits myself as of yet and wanted to contribute to this page. I believe if my statements cannot be used, at least the articles could be included in some meaningful way or I could make changes to the statements to better accompany them.

First off, I would suggest adding information and reference to either the Pathophysiology:Genetics or Characteristics: Early sub-sections (or wherever else it could be deemed appropriate).

"It was found that in looking at the hereditary form of the disease, many proteins that were classic markers of Alzheimer's (such asamyloid) were elevated in carriers that showed no symptoms of the disease, along with other proteins that were markers of inflammation and synaptic function. This suggests that synapses are breaking down very early in the disease and less likely influenced by aging, but further testing on this is necessary."

My next suggestion could also fit the Genetics sub-section or wherever else desired.

"A coding mutation of the APP (amyloid-β precursor protein) gene referred to as A673T possibly protects against Alzheimer's disease and cognitive decline in the elderly without it. This also means that the pathology of both Alzheimer's and cognitive decline in elderly may be shared. It reduces BACE1 cleavage of the the APP gene, giving support to idea of BACE inhibitors as a possible treatment for the disease."

Joevt09 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Typically we use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. You can edit this page here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Inflammation-driven axonopathy

Dear Editors of Wikipedia could you add the following paragraph into the section 2.4 Other hypotheses:

It is also proposed that, in contrast to familial form, the late-onset AD develops as an inflammation driven axonopathy. This view is in agreement with the hypothesis formulated already in 1907 by Oscar Fisher, who suggested that degenerating neurons might represent a cause of plaques and tangles formation. Moreover, it is increasingly acknowledged that aging, the major risk factor for AD, is accompanied by chronic elevation of pro-inflammatory mediators.

1)Krstic D, Knuesel K (2013)Deciphering the mechanism underlying late-onset Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol. 9:25-34

2)Fischer O (1907) Miliare Nekrosen mit drusigen Wucherungen der Neurofibrillen, eine regelmässige Veränderung der Hirnrinde bei seniler Demenz. Monatsschr Psychiat Neurol 22:361-72.

3)Franceschi C, Capri M, Monti D, Giunta S, Olivieri F, Sevini F, Panourgia MP, Invidia L, Celani L, Scurti M, Cevenini E, Castellani GC, Salvioli S. (2007) Inflammaging and anti-inflammaging: A systemic perspective on aging and longevity emerged from studies in humans. Mech Ageing Dev. 128:92–105.

AlzFighter (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have doubts about the sentence concerning Fischer. Do recent sources give credit to him for this idea? I couldn't find any that do, and if not, it would be synthesis on our part to do so. Other than that this proposal looks okay to me (with some minor tweaking). Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear AlzFighter, thank you for citing our work, but Oscar Fischer did not propose that degenerating neurons might represent a cause of plaque and tangle formation - he "just" described axonal swellings. I think the paragraph is OK if you remove the "Fischer-sentence" and have "...This view is in agreement with the observation that the aging, the major risk factor for AD, is accompanied by chronic elevation of pro-inflammatory mediators (ref3). D.Krstic 130.60.196.17 (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

sorry my mistake, I don't speak German! But I saw beautiful pics drawn by Fisher in 1907 - he emphasized neuritic degeneration in the plaques. however don't worry nothing from this will ever finish in this Wikipedia page. amyloid hypothesis is to big to fail... AlzFighter (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This could be a good ref

• McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H; et al. (2011). "The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease" (PDF). Alzheimers Dement. 7 (3): 263–9. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005. PMC 3312024. PMID 21514250. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Due to the limitations imposed on me by my auditory processing disorder, I have very poor copy editing skills, so I restrict myself to suggesting and editing possible references / citations, you can find more similar to this included in myonline PubMed Alzheimer's Disease collection dolfrog (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We hope to roll out the above added template to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2013

Please change "Early research in mouse models may have identified markers for AD." and replace it with "Early research using a small cohort of Alzheimer's disease patients may have identified autoantibody markers for AD." The reason for this request is that while the researchers in citation 118 used mouse models of MS in a proof of concept study, the AD work was examined in at least 6 autopsy-confirmed human AD patients, using other humans as controls. Reference 118 can be left as the citation. 69.94.195.216 (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Done - I'm not an expert in this subject so I will assume good faith. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

for the genetics section?

"a team led by Dr. Allen Roses at Duke University in North Carolina reported at an Alzheimer's conference earlier this week that a second gene closely linked to ApoE4 called TOMM40 also significantly raised Alzheimer's risk.

Roses said together, the two genes may account for 85 to 90 percent of inherited forms of Alzheimer's."

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/us-alzheimers-gene-idUSTRE56E7BD20090716

More genes implicated in AD, incl familial AD:

"The researchers said Clusterin may explain 10 percent of Alzheimer's cases, PICALM around 9 percent and CR1 4 percent. By comparison, 20 to 25 percent of Alzheimer's cases are linked to APOE.

Three gene variations have also been associated with rare, early-onset forms of Alzheimer's that run in families."

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/07/us-gene-links-alzheimers-idUSTRE58631Z20090907

Our guideline for references is here WP:MEDRS. This are not suitable sources typically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

after doing some basic research regarding the Reuters article I found the research being reported Harold D, Abraham R, Hollingworth P; et al. (2009). "Genome-wide association study identifies variants at CLU and PICALM associated with Alzheimer's disease". Nat. Genet. 41 (10): 1088–93. doi:10.1038/ng.440. PMC 2845877. PMID 19734902. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) which has since been cited by over 100 PubMed articles, including this 2011 review - Paulson HL, Igo I (2011). "Genetics of dementia". Semin Neurol. 31 (5): 449–60. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1299784. PMC 3545709. PMID 22266883. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) dolfrog (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Primary research and case reports

This article appears to be full of primary research and case reports. The stuff I have just dealt with seems to have been added since it became FA in 2008. This article may need a good updating / cleaning to stay FA.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Life and Death in Assisted Living

Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pressroom/frontline-propublica-investigate-assisted-living-in-america/ Please contribute to discussion Talk:Assisted_living#Life_and_Death_in_Assisted_Living XOttawahitech (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Grammar of one particular sentence

I'm just wondering if a sentence can be clarified via the use of punctuation, as it is a bit ambiguous right now.

After reading the sentence about education (which normally happens earlier in a person's life), the following sentence could be read as both (note the different punctuation added to them)...

"Learning a second language even later in life, seems to delay getting Alzheimer disease."

...and...

"Learning a second language, even later in life, seems to delay getting Alzheimer disease."

Please can one of these two options be talked about, or chosen and represented in the wiki article, so that readers know whether the sentence means that one might be able to delay Alzheimers by learning a language later on in life, or at any point in life (including later in life).

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughdickson (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 May 2012‎

The "even later in lifeé must either be marked off with two commas or none at all (that's the trend these days); To put only one comma is just a nonsense, unless you are actually going to put later than (when?). PhilomenaO'M (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Aluminum -- update needed?

Under 'Prevention', we have: Some studies have shown an increased risk of developing AD with environmental factors such the intake of metals, particularly aluminium.[-- reference from 2007 --] The quality of some of these studies has been criticised,[-- reference from 2007 --] and other studies have concluded that there is no relationship between these environmental factors and the development of AD.[-- reference from 2002 --]

In a newspaper feature dated 8/1/2013, we find:  The question of aluminum toxicity has been controversial for decades. A review of the evidence in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (March, 2011) concluded: "The hypothesis that Al [aluminum] significantly contributes to AD [Alzheimer's disease] is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD." (http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2013/05/20/is-natural-deodorant-really-safer/)

Here's the abstract from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21157018:

The brain is a highly compartmentalized organ exceptionally susceptible to accumulation of metabolic errors. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease of the elderly and is characterized by regional specificity of neural aberrations associated with higher cognitive functions. Aluminum (Al) is the most abundant neurotoxic metal on earth, widely bioavailable to humans and repeatedly shown to accumulate in AD-susceptible neuronal foci. In spite of this, the role of Al in AD has been heavily disputed based on the following claims: 1) bioavailable Al cannot enter the brain in sufficient amounts to cause damage, 2) excess Al is efficiently excreted from the body, and 3) Al accumulation in neurons is a consequence rather than a cause of neuronal loss. Research, however, reveals that: 1) very small amounts of Al are needed to produce neurotoxicity and this criterion is satisfied through dietary Al intake, 2) Al sequesters different transport mechanisms to actively traverse brain barriers, 3) incremental acquisition of small amounts of Al over a lifetime favors its selective accumulation in brain tissues, and 4) since 1911, experimental evidence has repeatedly demonstrated that chronic Al intoxication reproduces neuropathological hallmarks of AD. Misconceptions about Al bioavailability may have misled scientists regarding the significance of Al in the pathogenesis of AD. The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD. PMID 21157018 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]" -- Jo3sampl (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't think the peoplespharma site would be considered a wp:MEDRS by any stretch of the imagination. The rather alarmist tone of PMID 21157018 and other papers by Tomljenovic et al is reminiscent of the thiomersal fiasco. Suggest you read PMC 3653708. Unless we see some independent confirmation, we should tread carefully. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that People's Pharmacy columns can't be treated as MEDRS. I agree that some researchers found Tomljenovic alarmist on the topic of HPV vaccines. Let's keep our eyes open. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Student Alzheimer project alert

• User:Feliskoo/sandbox on Alzheimer and food ?
• Education Program talk:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)/Timeline

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Airbag Problem

Unfortunately, this Wikipedia page is led/edited by a group of amyloid lobbyist instead of concerned citizens. How else could one explain the systematic removal of the inflammation hypothesis of Alzheimer`s Disease, proposed 20 years ago and revived recently in Nature Reviews Neurology http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/v9/n1/abs/nrneurol.2012.236.html

But the inconvenient Truth cannot be hidden, not anymore. Sooner or later, everybody will realize that the Amyloid hypothesis is an Airbag hypothesis. For more details please check: http://www.actaneurocomms.org/content/1/1/62/abstract

So, if you DO NOT want to include "inflammation hypothesis", I suggest to include the "airbag hypothesis" in hypothesis section of the main article. Remember, we are all at risk of getting it, so we should do something about it! AlzFighter (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that Alzheimer's has inflammation involvement. Just do some research on the following and their use in Alzheimer's : Turmeric, Aspirin, Etanercept. Then look into HSV1 and the APoE4 gene and things will start to make sense. Zarkme (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What is in your mind, or mine, is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We work from the most reliable published sources available to report the concensus view of experts in the field. Krstic & Knuesel's paper in Nat Rev Neurol, while labelled as a Review, is in fact advancing an original thesis. So far, it has been cited in only two papers other than ones by K & K, which is indicative of that thesis not having been broadly accepted at this time. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings here. It is practically a universal law that an editor who says "the inconvenient Truth cannot be hidden" is always in the wrong, and I hate giving any support to that sort of fanaticism. But Nat Rev journals are as high-quality a source as possible, and anything discussed there should get consideration as worth mentioning -- not as the mainstream view if it isn't, but at least as a possibility that is taken seriously in the field. Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Note the phrasing the editors used in the table of contents for that issue of Nat Rev Neurol:

Drug development efforts for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) have met with disappointing results. Krstic and Knuesel argue for a re-evaluation of pathological mechanisms underlying the disease, with a shift of focus away from amyloid-β as the key therapeutic target. Through integration of their own research with the wider literature, they present a model that places inflammation and impairments in axonal functions and integrity at the heart of AD pathology.

(my emphasis). Even then, it does not challenge the amyloid hypothesis, just its utility as a theraputic target in L-O AD drug development. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow people, I am honored that my review(s) induced such a discussion on a talk page! Unfortunately, similar discussion is not taking place in the scientific circles, hence no citations except our own so far. But, sometimes "new" ideas need to mature, like a good wine. Here, I would like to emphasize that I agree with Looie496, that the idea presented in Nature Rev Neurology is one more hypothesis, hence once upon a time I suggested on the talk page to include it in the hypothesis section of the Alzheimer's main page (did not happen). And it does not contradict or challenge the Abeta hypothesis, just shifts the emphasis away from Abeta, as nicely pointed-out by LeadSongDog. However, I dont agree with the alzfighter, obviously a fan of inflammation hypothesis, that our new review on the POTENTIAL airbag problem of AD research is uncovering any "inconvenient Truth", rather demonstrates that the opposite thinking about role of Ab and APP in AD is also supported by scientific results and observations. This should stimulate the discussion in the field, since the "truth" is probably the mixture of every hypothesis. Hope this explains our view a bit better. Dimitrije Krstic 169.228.170.180 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A news source for a recent result

I added the following source from BBC News in Further reading and it was removed on the grounds that it fails WP:MEDRS. Given that it is not even cited, it's not clear to me why it shouldn't be in Further reading while articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CNN, The Guardian, and BBC News are cited. However, my main purpose was to alert editors about it, so I will just put it here and let others decide what to do with it:

• Gallagher, James (10 October 2013). "Alzheimer's breakthrough: Cure or hype?". BBC News. Retrieved 7 November 2013.

RockMagnetist (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed it as a link, because it is an article which claims a medical breakthrough, and that requires a suitable source. There are two cases of the BBC being cited in the article; one is to mention the death of a person with Alzheimer's and the other to give information about two documentaries on an Alzheimer's patient. In neither of these cases is the purpose of the reference to give the public medical information and in my opinion MEDRS does not apply. I suspect that the other references to media sources are similar, but if any are used as sources for more critical information, they should be replaced by MEDRS sources.-gadfium 03:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So how about as an external link? RockMagnetist (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We've been around this loop many times here before to disappointing ends. It's only a mouse study, far from usable as yet. If there's any place for it right now, it would be Alzheimer's disease research, so I've raised it on that talk page. Please continue discussion there.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gadfium and LeadSongDog, but neither must we include info in the Research sub-article that is a recent, unreviewed finding that falls afoul of what Wikipedia is not (news). When/if this finding is covered by secondary sources, it might find a home in the main or sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

O.k. Thanks for passing it on. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources are getting rather dated

Many of this article's sources are rather pushing wp:MEDDATE, they could use some refreshing. There's been a fair bit of work done over the past five years that doesn't really show up. Some brushing up would not go amiss. Some possibile sources on (e.g.) assessment:

1. PMID 24145578
2. PMID 24144963
3. PMID 24094912

LeadSongDog come howl! 17:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind lending a hand to update the references. I'll work on it this weekend. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent video avalaible - added as an external link

I came across an excellent CBC program http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/untangling-alzheimers, and since it is not used as a reference I thought it could be added as an external link. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

We are not a collection of external links. Please add to DMOZ if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you suggest a location on Wikipedia to include such an outstanding Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program? XOttawahitech (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything in the show that would be worth adding to the article, keeping in mind that wp:MEDREF constrains the use of such sourcing to non-medical assertions such as societal impacts? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You could try adding it to DMOZ. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what DMOZ is - I don't believe it is part of Wikipedia? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not. It is a site for people who wish to build a community curated collection of external links. We then link to them. It actually could be interesting to ask them if they wished to join us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @LeadSongDog: Thanks for asking. To be honest I have not read the wiki-article front to end, definitely not in one sitting. I am not familiar enough with it, and the with the David Suzuki video, but I am sure someone could find information in the video that can be added to the wiki-article.

The point though is that there are people out there who could benefit greatly from watching this video – so why can’t we bring it to their attention? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The can try youtube. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed for discussion

Student editing, I will shortly open a report at WP:ENI#University of Manchester, AD SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality of Life

Quality of Life has recently come under scrutiny as a way of measuring the effect that Alzheimer’s disease has on patients. Additionally, measuring quality of life is a useful method for assessing the efficacy of new treatments or medications. If the score on a quality of life measure changes after a trial treatment has taken place, it can be inferred that the given treatment has had an effect on the disease.

A popular method of measuring quality of life is utilizing patient-reported outcome (PRO ) measures. There are many quality of life measures which are specific to Alzheimer’s disease. Examples of these measures include the Alzheimer Disease Related Quality of Life (ADRQL), the Cornell-Brown Scale for Quality of Life (CBS), Dementia Care Mapping (DCM), Dementia Quality of Life (DQOL), Psychological Well-Being in Cognitively Impaired Persons (PWB-CIP), Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID), Quality of Life-Alzheimer’s Disease (QOL-AD) and the Quality of Life Assessment Schedule (QOLAS).

There is also a quality of life measure that has been developed to assess the quality of life of caregivers, or people who care for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. This is called the Quality of Life of Carers of Alzheimer’s Disease Patients (ACQLI).

Part of the issue appears to be that it is partly based on primary sources. It should be based on secondary ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you add PMIDs (where available) to citations. You can do the same with DOIs if you can find those. The |pmid= and |doi= are then linked. If you click on them, you'll find the abstract on Pubmed (or the journal site). There, try following the "cited by", "related" and "reviews" links to look for more recent and higher quality (secondary) sources that comply with wp:MEDRS. Good hunting. (p.s. There's no need to cite the date accessed for published journal articles, they're almost always stable once published. Using a full URL for PMID or DOI links is likewise unnecessary.)LeadSongDog come howl! 18:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Further help is here WP:MEDHOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I will work on the sources and ensure I read up on better ways to present this information. I'll also make sure to post in the Talk page first. Thank you very much for your time and help. JamesOAdams (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Alzheimer's Medicines in Development

Regarding my removal of this text added by Jonjtripp

Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia

You removed the addition I made to a report referencing potential treatments in various stages of clinical research for Alzheimer's disease, indicating it is not helpful for a broad entry. This report is entirely helpful for a very specific disease, and only adds value to the subject. I would appreciate a dialogue with you on this, and what can be done to get a reference of the work being done into the Alzheimer's disease entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjtripp (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:WIAFA, WP:OWN#Featured articles, WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, along with WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Text about 75 different medicines with no context for their significance per secondary reviews is not an appropriate addition for a featured article (in fact, may not be for any article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

We already state "As of 2012, the safety and efficacy of more than 400 pharmaceutical treatments had been or were being investigated in 1012 clinical trials worldwide, " in the appropriate section? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Good enough, covered then ... but on TS, I have been able to source statements of that nature to secondary reviews. Perhaps there are some for AD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Likely. This article is on my list to eventually update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We have a subsidiary article Alzheimer's disease research focussed on developing therapies. Even there, we've had to draw the line at only addressing human trials after finishing stage 2 or later to keep it manageable. The track record of highly touted early results on AD that later go fizzle is still quite depressing. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The section "genetics" is largely incorrect. I would like to update this page describing the mutations, why they are pathogenic and add references. I work in Alzheimer's disease research, as everyone can check on www.pubmed.org (my name is Fabrizio Chiti). Flick71 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to help. Semi-protection means that autoconfirmed editors (generally speaking, those with a registered account that is at least 4 days old and has performed at least 10 edits; WP:AUTOCONFIRM offers a further explanation) can edit the page directly. After you meet those requirements you should technically be able to edit the page; however, as this is a featured article with an active pool of editors, it would be preferable to suggest your proposed text here on the talk page first. Maralia (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)