Talk:Alzheimer's disease/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Prion Discussion

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2019/05/414326/alzheimers-disease-double-prion-disorder-study-shows Based on news articles like this one, prions and protein folding are becoming an increasing route of investigation into the causes of the disease. Suggest that the article include more discussion of prions and links to relevant wiki pages and primary sources. Apologies that I am not comfortable making these edits myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgk934 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We can’t add that based on primary sources or news reports, but I am fairly certain that policy-compliant secondary review sources can be found to cover this. That it is NOT covered is one of many rrasons that I suggest (above) that this article is not at featured standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Dgk934 you can find information about sourcing medical content on Wikipedia in the first template at the top of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation style

@Joan1087, Bharatss-SB, and Joyjxu1: you all are doing excellent work! Now that you're more experienced, we can move away from your user talk pages, and discuss edits here on article talk, where everyone who follows the article may participate.

You may have noticed me adjusting your references. There is nothing wrong with what you're doing (we're happy to have good sources!!!), but it's typical for articles to maintain one citation style, so I have been making adjustments only to maintain consistency.

Have a look at

• WP:CITEVAR and
• this handy tool for generating a complete citation from a PMID,

which will yield the same citation style as already used in this article. The style in this article is vancouver (vauthors or veditors), you don't need to add a URL when there is already a PMC (that becomes the URL), page ranges are typically truncated to two digits when possible (eg 576–586 would become 576–86), and you should only use the URL field when it goes to a non-PMC free full text. Don't use a URL unless it provides free full text of the article that is not already duplicated by the PMC field.

Your edits are still great, even if you don't move to this level of citation formatting, but your work may be easier (for you and for me) if you just generate your citations by using Diberri's tool, so you'll get everything we need, and I'll have less fixing to do (which is probably causing edit conflicts for all of you!) Keep up the good work, it has been a pleasure so far, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There are also some links at the top of my userpage (User:SandyGeorgia) talking about the overuse of words like however, also, and other sorts of editorializing fillers. Hope you find that info useful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia. Thank you so much for going through our references and work so far! We will look into using that citation tool, and will be more cognizant of our usage of those words! Joan1087 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Joan1087. I’m not sure what citation tool you all are using for books, but publisher must be included, url= is only used when it goes to free full text, and try to remember to use vauthors for vancouver style authors if you can. Publisher, though, is critical. None of your sources have them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia, as Joan1087 mentioned, thank you so much for providing feedback, checking our work, and helping us in general! We greatly appreciate it! I just added in a section on the NIA-AA criterion under the criteria subsection of Diagnosis. To the sources here, I added the publisher information manually as well as tried using the Citation tool, but I might need to play around with it more to get better at using it - will definitely be looking into this. I will also be working on adding the publisher information to the DSM-5 paragraph. Thank you so much again!! Bharatss-SB (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Diagnosis of Early-onset Alzheimer's section?

Hello everyone, myself as well as Joan1087 and Joyjxu1 were thinking of adding our research on the diagnosis of Early-onset Alzheimer's disease by creating a new section for it on this article. This information is not presented here or on the Early-onset Alzheimer's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early-onset_Alzheimer%27s_disease. It does somewhat tie into the diagnosis of Alzheimer's at its preclinical stage. But, we could also add it to the research directions section if that is preferred. Feel free to let us know your thoughts! Bharatss-SB (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Bharatss-SB and User:Joan1087, Have you had a chance to see WP:SS? It is probably best to add that content to Early-onset Alzheimer's disease, and once the content there is settled, add only a one- or two-line summary back to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia, that sounds good! We will be adding it to that article while including the two-line summary here. For the summary, however, would it be okay to make a subsection in the Diagnosis section, or should we make a new section for it in this article? Bharatss-SB (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ping me after you’ve added it to the sub-article, and I’ll be better to able to opine. Generally, adding one or two sentences here that use a wikilink to that article is the way to go, but if it has considerable content worthy of its own section, then we would use a WP:HATNOTE and maybe add a new section … depends on WP:DUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

PS, @Bharatss-SB and Joan1087: forgot to ping your collaborator Joyjxu1 and to mention that you all are doing amazing work. I have never before worked with student editors who were this conscientious and productive and collaborative. @Ian (Wiki Ed) and Mcbrarian: I hope you are getting an “A” for your effort! And more, I hope you will stay around after your course ends to help get this article back up to snuff. It was once a Featured article, but fell away from featured status due to neglect and becoming very outdated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia Thank you for all your help, we really appreciate it and we do hope to continue editing after our course is over! We'll ping you after we've added it to the sub-article. Joan1087 (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia Adding on to what Joan1087 just said, thank you so much for all your kind words and help! We will definitely stay after the course ends to help get the article back up to a better ranking. I think this might be a newfound hobby for all of us! On a side note, one thing we were thinking of doing in the next coming days is to upgrade the ranking of the article up to a class B (after we edit it some more and ensure all the cn's are covered). Would you agree with this new ranking? If not, are there any suggestions you would like to add so that we can prioritize them in our editing for now? Thank you so much again!! We greatly appreciate all of your help :) Bharatss-SB (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bharatss-SB editors are not encouraged to upgrade the assessment on articles they have contributed significantly to, rather to have someone else do that re-assessment. I could do that for you, but it is pretty clear that the "Society and culture" and "Research directions" sections (at least, and maybe others) are still grossly outdated, so the article does not yet warrant a B-class assessment. You all took on a very big, and very oudated topic, and made excellent progress!

The main thing you could prioritize for now, if you want extra work (after fixing the issues I raise in the next section, #Reviewing work so far), is to carefully go through every section and make sure text is up to date. Wherever you find dated text, you could put an {{update needed}} tag next to the old citation, as that encourages other editors to make those additions. It's OK to leave an article tagged; that is not a reflection on your work, which has greatly improved the article, rather a way to get more editors to keep up the good work. I did one sample for you here; note that the sources are VERY old, and new data is surely available on this. Also, see in that edit how you can add hidden comments that future editors will see, even though they don't show in the rendered version that readers see.

With or without an upgrade to B-class, all of you have an earned an "A" in my book for your work here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia, thank you so much for letting us know! We will be looking into those sections as well as the items mentioned in the #Reviewing work so far section on the talk page. Also, that's a really cool feature! Thank you for letting us know about it as we will definitely begin using it. We will also update the talk page on our progress as we adjust these newly suggested sections, thank you again! Bharatss-SB (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bilingualism

Medical citation needed for "Learning a second language later in life seems to delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease." Grant, A., Dennis, N.A. and Li, P. (2014). Cognitive control, cognitive reserve, and memory in the aging bilingual brain. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solacialuctus (talk • contribs) 07:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Solacialuctus and welcome! Here is the formatted citation for that:

• Grant A, Dennis NA, Li P (2014). "Cognitive control, cognitive reserve, and memory in the aging bilingual brain". Front Psychol. 5: 1401. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01401. PMC 4253532. PMID 25520695.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

but I'm a bit concerned about using this source. It is flagged as a low-quality journal by Headbomb's script. It seems to be a secondary review (to comply with WP:MEDRS), but it is dated (2014, see WP:MEDDATE). And it seems to be contradicted by this more recent review:

• Brini S, Sohrabi HR, Hebert JJ, et al. (March 2020). "Bilingualism Is Associated with a Delayed Onset of Dementia but Not with a Lower Risk of Developing it: a Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses". Neuropsychol Rev. 30 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1007/s11065-020-09426-8. PMC 7089902. PMID 32036490.

So it seems that something can be said, but the text needs to be adjusted accordingly. Also, the "later in life" bit is not clear to me (but I haven't read the full studies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing work so far

@Bharatss-SB, Joan1087, and Joyjxu1: sorry I've been busy and not keeping up with your latest edits. Reviewing this work done since I last looked in:

• Use of this technique in clinical practice is still limited, however, due to the lack of coverage by insurance companies. See MOS:CURRENT. The word still should be replaced with a date for time context. There should be no space between the end of the sentence and the ref tags. However is often redundant (see the top of User:SandyGeorgia). And, the reference to insurance companies is specific to the US. SO: my changes.
• With this text
  • (Additional research is required to understand the lifestyle effect, such as gaining insight in neuroimaging biomarkers to understand mechanisms<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Arenaza-Urquijo EM, Wirth M, Chételat G | title = Cognitive reserve and lifestyle: moving towards preclinical Alzheimer's disease | journal = Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience | volume = 7 | pages = 134 | date = 2015-08-10 | pmid = 26321944 | pmc = 4530312 | doi = 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00134 }}</ref>.{{MEDCN|date=November 2021}}

it's hard to tell what is intended. The citation needed tag was left, but a citation was added, so a reader wonders if only part of the sentence is covered by the citation. ALso, puncutation goes before the ref tags (except in the case of dashes). Understand ... understand ... is redundant. That source is wonderful and likely to be re-used, so I have named it. SO: my copyedit and while that source is likely to be useful in expanding lifestyle, that particular text fits better in the "Research directions" section.

• In this edit, there are several items needing clarification:
  • Prevalence estimates in 2015 were that around 47 million people worldwide had dementia. I can't decipher how to read that source, or where to locate the 47 million number, but it is unclear if the number was intended to refer to all types of dementia, or just AD. Relative to the 50 used later, it seems to apply only to AD, but the text says dementia, which is broader.
  • As the incidence and prevalence are steadily increasing, the prevalence itself is projected to triple by 2050. The text implies that this trend is global or worldwide, but the source seems to be specific to China. Since the source is not freely available, clarification is needed.
  • Some high-income countries, however, have noticed declines in their trends. A "decline in trends" needs a time reference; from what time frame to what time frame, or since when ??

References

That's all I've got; very nice work, but I hope you are able to clarify these small matters, as I can't sort how to read that source. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia, thanks for checking through our work! We're a little overloaded right now because of our exams, however we'll make sure to address your comments over the coming weeks! Joan1087 (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Joan1087; that would be grand. Good luck on your finals! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia, Happy New Year! Just wanted to let you know that we will still continue to work on this. The break was a bit hectic for all of us with exams, work, and now once we get settled in with our second-term courses (as course changes are happening right now), we will continue to edit the article as we did previously :) Bharatss-SB (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello all! @Bharatss-SB, Joan1087, Joyjxu1, and SandyGeorgia: I am a medical student taking a course at UCSF wanting to help out with this article. I was reading through your discussions and it actually looks like the citations needed to be more current and updated, namely "Society and Culture" and "Research" sections. I want to know how I can help most. I can also go through an editing/grammar tool called Hemmingway editor to clean up the grammar too since some of the sentences throughout are a little too long and/or complex. I will be posting my Workplan by the end of tonight and will review it with my colleagues tomorrow. Let me know if you have any questions!

PS. not sure how to tag or "ping" people on here just yet but excuse me as I get used to the Wikipedia tools! Looking forward to working with you all! :) 10:35, 3 March 2022 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Sardinha (talk • contribs)

Hi, Dr. Sardinha. Unless you sign your entries, "pings" are not received by the intended editors. I have this page watchlisted, so saw your entry, and Bharatss-SB, Joan1087 and Joyjxu1 seem to be no longer editing.

You can sign your edits on talk pages by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. I have also correctly indented/threaded your post for you; see this information about how to indent and thread conversations on Wikipedia for better readability.

I am not a fan of the results returned by the readability tools, and they have been many times rejected by many discussions on Wikipedia, as they often result in choppy sentences and dumbed down text, so I suggest first posting some examples of your intended fixes in that area. Colin is most knowledgeable in that regard.

As to where you might best work on this article, yes, the Society and culture section is not in good shape; there is ample new secondary literature on the costs, for example. The other area most in need of help is the Medications section. Thanks for the effort, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Feb-Mar 2022 UCSF SOM

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 February 2022 and 27 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dr. Sardinha (article contribs).

Work Plan

Aspect of Work Plan	Notes
Article Chosen	Alzheimer's Disease
Why this article?	My grandmother has mild to moderate Alzheimer’s which has taken an increasingly large toll on my family who takes care of her. This is a disease process I would like to learn more about. No one in my family comes from a medical background so it is important to me that the article has great readability and up to date. Additionally, this article is of Top importance with only a C quality grade. It also had a 2-5k page views/day over the past year.
Initial Anlaysis	I think the article has great potential, but as described in the Notes of previous Wikipedians, there are several statements throughout a few of the sections, specifically "Prevention," "Management - Medication," and "Society + Culture," that need to be updated. Statements are supported by resources from almost 20 years ago which would warrant a review of the current literature to examine how and if things have changed. Specifically, within the “Caregiving Burden” section, I will try to find more current information regarding the effects on the caregiver(s). In the “Media” section, I can update the list with more current representations. In the “Research Directions” section,I plan to elaborate on the statements already made but also try and look into other future research directions other than aducanumab, medication, and the ketone-diet. I also believe other causes other than HSV and fungal infections could be listed as potential causes. Otherwise, improve readability throughout the article and attempt to read through the lens of someone who is not in the medical field or familiar with the disease.

Timeline

Milepost Date	To Be Completed Before Milepost Date
Fri, March 4th	Choose article Read and evaluate article Complete work plan
Wed, March 9th	Review, update, and collect references: Prevention: Medication, Lifestyle Improve readability of section
Wed, March 16th	Review, update, and collect references: Prevention: Diet Improve readability of section
Mon, March 21st	Review, update, and collect references: Social Cost Improve readability of section
Fri, March 25th	Read and use feedback to make changes to the article accordingly!

Dr. Sardinha (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Sardinha see my comments in the section above re Hemmingway Editor and readability. As to updating the Caregiver burden, please be sure to use sources and information specific to Alzheimer's as there is already a general article at Caring for people with dementia. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:, thank you for the feedback re: Hemmingway and I will make sure I find sources specific to Alzheimer's in my research as I know this has been an issue in other sections as well! Thank you for the help! Dr. Sardinha (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Sardinha the caregiving section at Featured article Dementia with Lewy bodies may provide an example to guide your work: Dementia with Lewy bodies#Caregiving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:, Awesome! I did see that you've worked on that article too! I will definitely look that over and see how I can use that as a guideline to help with my proposed edits. Thanks for the help and continued communication! Dr. Sardinha (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Sardinha see WP:ENGVAR; although it is slipping, this article uses British English (see the template buried under Other talk page banners at the top of this page). Also, on WP:CITEVAR, it uses Vancouver style authors. You can just plug a PMID in to this tool to get a citation that conforms with the article established style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: "Prevention" is a larger section than I anticipated. There are many statements that need clarification since many studies examine mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia rather than Alzheimer's disease specifically. So unless the review article examined articles that looks at Alzheimer's disease specifically, I had to specify that. The "Lifestyle" section also examines many different aspect of lifestyle - higher education, occupational attainment, leisure activities, physical exercise, calorie restriction (should be in diet?), and meditation all of which are very interesting but other interesting lifestyle changes I want to look into are smoking, sleep, and stress and how that may possibly prevent Alzheimer's disease.Dr. Sardinha (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)(talk) 15:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: I completed the Lifestyle section and went on to move onto the Diet section, but it was suggested most of the section be omitted and also moved to the "Management" section as evidence was not sufficient. Instead of undoing the edit, I decided to add-on a statement at the end of the diet section that states which dietary factors have been studied as I found that the review articles I looked up were noteworthy and should be mentioned, if not here, in the future direction section. I will now try update and work on the "Social Cost" subsection as many of the references have been outdated. Dr. Sardinha (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review by Zeboman123 Overall your improvements were wonderful! You definitely improved the quality and readability of the article. I especially appreciated the changes to the lifestyle section, and it was much more thorough and coherent than prior.

Comments: On the prevention: medication section I appreciated the work you did on the commonly used meds as well as NSAIDs, putting it in the context of widely used things. I also loved your inclusion of depression as a risk factor! If there is anything else that there is to be said about why depression might be a risk factor that could be something interesting to include — but certainly not necessary. One thing that drew my attention was the line about HRT not decreasing cognitive decline — I’d think about maybe acknowledging that Alzheimers disease is separate from general cognitive decline and then justifying why that evidence is helpful or not helpful given it isn’t precisely about Alzheimers disease.

I appreciated the overview you added on relevant lifestyle interventions. I also read about the issues with the diet section on the talk page and it looked complicated — but it looked like you had some good experience figuring out where to put things in collaboration with other Wikipedians! The additions you made to the social cost were also excellent, and is often an under-appreciated part of learning about disease — not just the disease process itself but the secondary effects etc.

Overall, great job! I appreciated all the work and time you put into it, and I’m sure all the people who read the page will too (though they won’t know it was you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeboman123 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review. The comment about depression was an interesting risk factor from a very robust peer review article I found, but I think you are right in that it may be too speculative as we talked about in zoom and unnecessary for the article unless I can find more substantial evidence to link them. For this reason, I have decided to omit it as I want to make the article clear, concise, and not misleading to the average reader. Thank you! Dr. Sardinha (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

On gut microbiome role in the disease

Increasing experimental, epidemiological and clinical evidences reveal that gut microbiome has a profound impact on the disease's onset and worsened course, in particular, through effects on formation of the blood-brain barrier, myelination, neurogenesis, and microglia maturation. Studies suggests that gut microbiome of patients with the disease have decreased microbial diversity and is compositionally distinct from control age- and sex-matched individuals, including decreased Firmicutes and Bifidobacterium, as well as increased Bacteroidetes. Results from germ-free animals and animals exposed to pathogenic microbial infections, antibiotics, probiotics, or fecal microbiota transplantation showed that gut microbiota modulates many aspects of animal behaviors, suggesting a role for the gut microbiota in disease related pathogenesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrivkov (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Self-portrait of artist William Utermohlen in the Media section under Society and culture

The illustration is from 1967, far before William Utermohlen was diagnosed. I'm not too clear on which pieces can be used through fair use, but we might want to replace this with one of his pieces created after 1995, which is when he was diagnosed. Uncreativivity (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Realmaxxver's original caption was factually correct, which read 'The later self-portraits of American artist William Utermohlen (1967 self-portrait pictured) created after diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, have given a "unique glimpse into the effects of [Alzheimer's disease]."' It looks as if that was a mistake introduced when the caption was trimmed. Somebody, who can, should change it back (though it probably can be made a little more concise) --77.97.133.89 (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Please update appropriate article/s with info about studies/developments about new biomarkers-based Alzheimer's screening

I featured a few major achievements in Alzheimer's disease research in 2022 in science and I think it may be good to add info about these and maybe similar developments to relevant articles (possibly including the ones wikilinked):

Alzheimer's disease (AD) research progress:
A study reports 42 new genes linked to an increased risk of AD. Researchers report a potential primary mechanism of sleep disturbance as an early-stage effect of neurodegenerative diseases. Researchers identify several genes associated with changes in brain structure over lifetime and potential AD therapy-targets (5 Apr).

and the month before:

Neuroscientists report that mutations that enable people to naturally sleep as short as five hours reduce Alzheimer's pathology in mice. On 17 March, a study reports that longer and more frequent daytime naps appears to be associated with higher risk of Alzheimer's dementia.

I'm not sure if, where and how it would be most due and would like to hear what you think about this.

---

I think Wikipedia articles should be up-to-date with relevant adequately-integrated brief scientific information. Please comment if you have any feedback or idea about if, where and how info about these (such) findings and their broader topics (these could then be examples or subtopics) should get added.

• Maybe there could be a Timeline of biomarkers / Timeline of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers (or something similar).
  A timeline article for biomarkers may not be the best approach, but I think enabling such, including on Wikipedia (e.g. it could also be enabled via Scholia and/or a dedicated collaborative biomarkers/screening database website), could still be useful and appropriate.
  For example a table with a column for the date could also be sorted by the date to show progress chronologically (rows with nonviable biomarkers and/or Alzheimer's screening progress could get trimmed).
• There already is the article Alzheimer's disease biomarkers but it gets almost no views and very rarely gets any changes so it's probably hopelessly outdated – maybe completely overhauling and updating this article and subsequently making it more visible within this AD article (maybe even transcluding parts of it) would be good too.
• Alternatively, maybe there could be a new article like Alzheimer's disease screening research / Alzheimer's disease research (the latter is only a redirect instead of a comprehensive article with nicely summarized sections that alltogether is summarized in "Alzheimer's disease#Research directions") that is parallel and similar to Spinal cord injury research.
  Note that it should be maintained and use scientific reviews like this 2 3 (probably at least/especially for article structure) whenever possible. I won't create any such article and would at most add a few updates to it. It could also later be combined with Scholia but I'm not sure yet how.

I suggested basically the equivalent thing at Talk:Cancer screening. I don't know if I'll keep adding significant multi-item entries about AD & cancer research to the 2022 in science article (maybe there could also be a separate "year in medicine/..." article where these could be added too).

References

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Heads up: questions raised about AD research

• Piller C (21 July 2022). "Blots on a field?". Science. 377 (6604).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A major rewrite minor section seems to be needed. For the moment, at least some NPOVing... Boud (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC) (clarified/updated Boud (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you mean; do you have an example of a direct implication to this article? This article never mentions anything about Aβ*56. And the amyloid hypothesis is still standing. Where do you see POV in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I put seems since I only browsed the article very rapidly. You do seem to be right - Aβ*56 and what the Science article and more popular-level articles circulating now say don't seem to have been covered in this article or Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease#Amyloid hypothesis. But it would be good to have a section somewhere on the case, including appropriate context. Many people are going to come to these Wikipedia articles to find more info and will want to know what part of the science is still considered valid and what has been put into doubt - and they'll expect it in TL;DR format... Boud (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Just adding some analysis of the Science article, in case that helps those who understand this stuff more than me! The Guardian primarily discusses how published images about the specific protein seem to have been doctored. The StarTribune discusses Dr. Karen Ashe's response, defending against implications the Science article made on papers she was involved with. Darlingm (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

See Sylvain Lesné and Talk:Sylvain Lesné for active editing on this topic. Boud (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see yet that a section is warranted in this article; in fact, I don't yet see even where to add a link to Sylvain Lesné (or I would have done that already). We do need to figure out, as I indicated at Talk:Sylvain Lesné, where to add a description of Aβ*56, and I am hoping User:Lukelahood will show in that discussion and lend a hand.

Overall, I urge that we wait for more sources to cover the topic before going too much further in depth than I already have at the Lesné article, or at Karen Ashe, so we don't get too far out ahead on this until we have an abundance of scientific sources. I think it curious that we have so far heard from major UK news outlets, but none in the US (eg New York Times, Washington Post), and I've already seen a few instances of minor contradictions in what is reported so far, along with a hugely sensationalized report including inaccuracies in The Daily Rag Kos. Let's try not to repeat what could turn out to be laypress inaccuracies and make sure what we write will stand the test of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) s/section/sentence\|paragraph/ once a place to add in a description of Aβ*56 makes sense. Boud (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure we will get the 'abundance of scientific sources' any time soon, and the Science article is written to be lay-comprehensible, and itself is somewhat meta, referring to several other articles, as befitting a journal of significant standing. It may be wiser to include some reference to this article as casting significant doubt for the Aβ plaque theory. Chumpih ^t 10:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any indications that the amyloid hypothesis is questioned. There are some over-hyped headlines that are going beyond what the researchers are saying, but I'm not aware of any credible indications the theory itself is suspect. It's the AB*56 oligomer. The dubious oligomer is never even mentioned on Wikipedia (outside of Sylvain Lesné. What MEDRS source would you use to state the amyloid hypothesis is quetioned? This is a good example of why we have WP:MEDRS. Today's latest is USA Today, whose headline says: "While a new report casts doubt on a 2006 Alzheimer’s study, researchers say it does not undercut the amyloid theory into the origin of the disease." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor spelling error

Alzheimer’s is spelled incorrectly at the very beginning of the “Diagnosis” section. Any chance anyone could fix that? 104.243.48.166 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Alzheimer, dementia / Peter J. Whitehouse

Hello, I don't see any reference in the article on long-term debates on the very relevance of Alzheimer's Disease concept. See for instance books and articles by Peter J. Whitehouse https://www.colorado.edu/cwa/peter-j-whitehouse https://brandy-schillace.medium.com/the-alzheimers-myth-9c366abb7b52 Reneza (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Student at Uskudar university

I'm joud Alakkad I'm a student and I want to edit this because im assigned to by my course in Istanbul turkey Joud alakkad (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Im a student

i am joud alakkad im assiged to to this by my course Joud alakkad (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Through protein BD-tau in the blood

Alzheimer can be diagnosticated by analyzing a Blood sample and the levels of the specific protein Brain Derived-tau (BD-tau). (sources: SciTech Daily and doi:10.1093/brain/awac407). 151.34.13.232 (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ibusto (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jellycat98 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Old timers disease" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Old timers disease has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 19 § Old timers disease until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Current Knowledge

This article is now so out of date as to be seriously misleading. So misleading that most of the contents could be deleted with no loss of utility.

I have Alzheimers desease and I have been involved in Alzheimers research for five years. So I'll not be doing any editing. AncientBrit (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article is so badly dated that gutting it may be the best forward. Because the task is so overwhelming, I haven't tried (other than tagging the article). If you identify specific passages that you believe should be wholly deleted, I will do so unless I find sources that disagree. But I don't have time or inclination to work on full update ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Review of history and mention of PANTHOS neurons and new hypothesis

What Causes Alzheimer’s? Scientists Are Rethinking the Answer. Dec 2022 could be used to update this article. Eg. Under Causes and Pathophysiology/disease_mechanism. eg PANTHOS neurons and autophagy-defect hypothesis. - Rod57 (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:MEDRS re sourcing of biomedical content, and read the Causes section of the article. Plenty of hypotheses are contemplated in the article already, and the article does not posit the amyloid hypothesis as rock solid, conclusive or exclusive. If you have high quality secondary reviews of specific hypotheses, they could likewise be allocated space according to due weight of all sources. A better starting place than the article you provided would be to explore secondary reviews, for example, those mentioned as worthy in PMID 33986301 like PMID 26007212 and PMID 33030307. I can find only one mention of PANTHOS in Pubmed, it is not a review, and I wouldn't be adding content from Quanta magazine to a medical article, particularly in the absence of other/better sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref names

Whywhenwhohow could you please stop mucking up the established ref names and the system established and working? Quotes are not required, and only unnecessary markup with the system used here: From Wikipedia:Citing sources (emphasis mine):

• The text of the name can be almost anything‍—‌apart from being completely numeric. If spaces are used in the text of the name, the text must be placed within double quotes. Placing all named references within double quotes may be helpful to future editors who do not know that rule. To help with page maintenance, it is recommended that the text of the name have a connection to the inline citation or footnote, for example "author year page": <ref name="Smith 2005 p94">text of the citation</ref>.

The named refs do not use spaces, and the quotes are not required. Please self-revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed the quotes. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful ... although it complicates the matter of now to which version to revert to deal with the factual inaccuracies introduced (see #Immunotherapies above). But while we are on citations, if Chamaemelum would use this tool to generate citations from a PMID, that would avoid introducing WP:CITEVAR problems that also mean more work to do the corrections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Does this look like the right format?

Budson, Andrew E.; Solomon, Paul R. (2016). "Cholinesterase Inhibitors". Memory Loss, Alzheimer's Disease, and Dementia. Elsevier. pp. 160–173. doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-28661-9.00016-0. ISBN 978-0-323-28661-9. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No; did you plug a PMID in to the tool I gave you above? The format above does not use vancouver author formats, nor does it provide a PMID, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Better?

Schneider LS, Insel PS, Weiner MW (January 2011). "Treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine of patients in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative". Arch Neurol. 68 (1): 58–66. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2010.343. PMC 3259850. PMID 21220675. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You got it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Tangle in genetic

As of this version, we must be leaving readers quite confused. We start out saying that late-onset is highly heritable (although the sources given don't seem to make that distinction). Then we delve into genetic models (flow issues), and the sources there do distinguish between late-onset and early-onset, but give different numbers than the earlier two sources. Then the paragraph goes redundantly into early-onset only. Then the next paragraph begins by telling us that most cases are not inherited after all. One wonders what the layreader is to make of this jumble, which has no structure or organization, and seemingly presents contradictory information. When adding new information, please incorporate it with the rest of the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It gets better: we also have this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've incorporated the familial section into the genetic section and improved the flow and accuracy of the information. Readers may have though that not inherited means not genetic, when in fact it was referring to not familial, i.e., not Mendelian inheritance. I've categorized the section into "early onset" and "late onset". One minor issue is that non-familial Alzheimer's could theoretically be early onset.

Also, while we're discussing the genetics section, it says:

"Some of the mutations merely alter the ratio between Aβ42 and the other major forms—particularly Aβ40—without increasing Aβ42 levels".

This is useless information without the context of if this is in the brain or spinal fluid. Alzheimer's patients are diagnosed based off of spinal fluid, which typically has opposite Aβ levels compared to the brain. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

We still have quite a jumble in the genetic section; the flow is bouncing around, basic definitions should be established earlier, and we still have info that will appear contradictory to the layreader, as well as info repeated across sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Update using https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

The current amyloid theory has been called into question following a six-month-long investigation by Science.org - since it was published in July 2022 this article should long have had a note to that effect. 64.229.175.25 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it should not have. Read Sylvain Lesné for a better accounting of the article by Charles Piller than whatever sources you are reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hint, you'll find what you need in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, This article could mention more clearly the published doubts/controversy about the amyloid hypothesis. The Lesné inquiry may have been more about the data for the AB*56 oligimers. (per links from What Causes Alzheimer’s? Scientists Are Rethinking the Answer.) - Rod57 (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Continued in section below (this article does not posit the amyloid hypothesis as rock solid). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Pop science is very different from the real state of the field. There is near-universal acceptance of the amyloid hypothesis (which isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with other hypotheses) and it has been replicated perhaps thousands of times. Discrediting it would be fringe. In fact, the current state of the article already give very much, perhaps too much, weight to alternative non-AB/Tau hypotheses. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Immunotherapies

Emerging immunotherapies (such as donanemab, aducanumab and lecanemab) and the accelerated US FDA approval process are one thing (along with their press releases and news reports); these can be used to support statements about FDA approval, but we need MEDRS-compliant sources to state that these emerging therapies are actually used in treatment, along with discussion of the serious risks, before they should be added to the article-- much less the infobox, as if their use was widespread or routinely accepted. They are not yet. Please stop adding treatment with controversial medications based on primary sources and news and press releases; see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GLOBAL as well (for instance, the Japanese are leaders in dementia research-- where do they stand on these controversial US-only FDA accelerated actions?).

• Vaz M, Silva V, Monteiro C, Silvestre S (2022). "Role of Aducanumab in the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease: Challenges and Opportunities". Clin Interv Aging. 17: 797–810. doi:10.2147/CIA.S325026. PMC 9124475. PMID 35611326.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Day GS, Scarmeas N, Dubinsky R, Coerver K, Mostacero A, West B, et al. (April 2022). "Aducanumab Use in Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease Evidence in Focus: A Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee". Neurology. 98 (15): 619–631. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000200176. PMC 9012273. PMID 35197360.
• Mahase E (June 2021). "Three FDA advisory panel members resign over approval of Alzheimer's drug". BMJ. 373: n1503. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1503. PMID 34117086. Archived from the original on 8 July 2023. Retrieved 7 July 2023.
• Belluck P, Robbins R (June 10, 2021). "Three F.D.A. Advisers Resign Over Agency's Approval of Alzheimer's Drug". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 November 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2023.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Whywhenwhohow with this edit, you are now officially editwarring, in spite of multiple requests to come to the talk page. I am not going to insult an established editor with a talk page template. But you are now re-instating UNDUE text into the article without answering my queries here. What source do you have to overcome NOTNEWS and GLOBAL to indicate this FDA rapid approval means this content belongs here or that the medication is widely used? With the additional problem of no mention of the serious adverse effects. This NOTNEWS, notGLOBAL content is UNDUE at this point in the article; when we have WP:MEDRS sources (not FDA press releases) discussing its use, only then will it be DUE content here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Chamaemelum are you reading the talk page? Besides making edits that do not address these issues, and without responding on talk, in this series of edits, you removed well-cited text and introduced faulty section headings.[1][2] Have you had the opportunity to have a look at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MSH? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no strong thoughts on the matter. We can keep it your preferred way; both are good to me. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Chamaemelum you have no strong thoughts on which matter? Both of which are good to you? Your edits introduced multiple stylistic errors, which are of less concern than the factual errors; we can't compromise on fact, and this edit introduces "facts" not supported by the sources. Most of what you have added needs to be reverted on both bases; which are you agreeing should be removed? The stylistic, or the content you added which is not backed by the sources you listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the headings/stylistic edits. I wrote full-approval for the wrong name, thanks. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

All right, so on the stylistic edits ... have you looked at WP:MEDORDER? Do you see how the Research directions section is (typically) used? I see Whywhenwhohow is working now towards correcting the factual errors, so I'll look at those in a few days. Thanks for participating on talk instead of barging ahead, so we don't end up with issues on top of issues, making it harder to restore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That guide also has "treatment" as a possible standalone section. To me, "research directions" implies research suggesting future possibilities that may yield a promising application (i.e., the machine learning diagnosis), but "treatment" implies previous research indicates some current application. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia The top of the pharmaceutical section contains a update-section template requesting updates that reflect recent events or newly available information. Lecanemab is from a Japanese pharmaceutical company that led its development and testing. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes; do you have any single WP:MEDRS-compliant source that indicates due weight in terms of its actual use? A press release (WP:NOTNEWS) and the absence of any MEDRS source supporting inclusion isn't what we typically mean with respect to keeping articles of any type updated, much less medical, where we have a greater obligation to accuracy.

Separately, we now have a conflation in the article between lecanemab and the other immunotherapy meds, so we've got a DUE weight issue now combined with failed verification ... neither of the meds having DUE weight sourcing ... which is why discussion on talk is a better editing method than edit warring-- how far back to have to revert now to get back to something accurate ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Immunotherapies continued

Chamaemelum, you made these edits today.

• Thank you for using the correct WP:CITEVAR on the journal articles, but note please that you failed to provide fully formed citations on NIA and Stanford.
• PMID 36655336 is clearly an opinion piece and does not meet WP:MEDRS. You should be able to tell that because a) it is not marked as a review in PubMed, and b) the narrative states clearly that it is an opinion piece.
• PMID 35928986 claims that it is a comprehensive review, but PubMed does not indicate it is one. Often that's because PubMed has a good reason; sometimes it's a PubMed mistake. Bon courage is knowledgeable on that topic. I recommend gaining consensus before using a source that PubMed does not have indicated as a review.
• Stanford Health Care is a commercial source; when a commercial medical source disagree with the underlying published literature, we should be using the published literature. Reading the content of that source provides a good indication of why these new and not-yet-widely-accepted therapies do not belong in the lead.
• This is how you would completely cite the NIA:

  "How Is Alzheimer's Disease Treated?". U.S. National Institute on Aging. 1 April 2023. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

• Regarding the NIA page: Did you read the full text of that article wrt immunotherapies and all its caveats? Did you compare and contrast that with what they write about the established treatments for Alzheimer's? Did you notice that the established treatments do not have anything-- much less multiple paragraphs-- of disclaimers about the state of the use of the medication?
• NIA is a good MEDRS source about these emerging drugs, and lists all the problems, caveats and disclaimers. This UNDUE content does not belong in the lead or the infobox until it is an established treatment protocol as mentioned in secondary reviews-- and not just a few marginal and cherry-picked ones.

You are working very hard to be sure that an emerging treatment is presented as a standard treatment in this article; please slow down and use the talk page. I am reverting your addition and adding the NIA to the other sources, that say the same thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Advocacy alert

Emerging immunotherapies are the subject of intense lobbying by patient advocate groups, resulting in fast-track approvals for drugs in spite of serious adverse affects and unproven benefits, and leading to the resignation of three members of the FDA advisory panel.

• New York Times 1,
• New York Times 2,
• BMJ,
• NPR,
• CNN,
• New York Times 3
• ARStechnica,
• Neurology

Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ADVOCACY and our medical content should be uncorrupted by it; adding this emerging therapy to the lead is UNDUE. It has a place in research directions; until these medications become a standard therapy, they don't belong in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hold off until these medications are less new (used more commonly in practice) and maybe have a Cochrane review or two. Separately but relatedly, some (obviously more established) evidence suggests acetylcholinesterase inhibitors may possibly but not certainly slow progression of certain symptoms. Between this and the emerging immunotherapies, what do you think about changing:

No treatments can stop or reverse its progression, though some may temporarily improve symptoms.

to something like:

[Option 1] No treatments can stop or reverse its progression. Some medications may temporarily improve symptoms.

[Option 2] No treatments can stop or reverse its progression. Some medications may temporarily decrease the rate that symptom worsen.

[Option 3] No treatments can stop or reverse its progression. Some medications may temporarily improve symptoms, or modestly decrease the rate that symptom worsen.

Also, in the research directions section, do you think it's worth mentioning the FDA's claim about Lecanemab slowing Alzheimer's disease (along with 1. side effects, 2. effect size and/or heterogeneity of effects)? Chamaemelum (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asking.

I don't see that any of the three options are (yet) an improvement, as the existing text is clear and succinct. Option 1 chops a fine sentence into two short stubby sentences to say the same thing (with a grammatical error). Option 2 says the same thing but in a more convoluted way that may lose the layreader.

Option 3 adds something new (with grammatical error) and has some potential, but a) I'm troubled that we're using the WHO page on dementia at all as a source (when it is not specific to Alzheimer's) and b) you are proposing a change to the lead rather than addressing the content first in the body, and c) we would first to need to add and cite your proposed wording in the body of the article. What cite supports the text (which best I can tell isn't anywhere in the body, probably because medical content went through a long phase where leads were edited without syncing them to the body)? See WP:LEAD; leads should summarize content in the body, and proposing changes first to a lead never works well.

For the reasons outlined in the news reports of the problems at the FDA (add this one, too), I don't see why we should be adding any of the FDA's claims to this article; we should use the underlying scientific literature. Consider what it says about the state of medication regulatory processes in the US for the FDA to have approved a medication that not one member of their advisory panel agreed with, with that class of medications being the source of intense lobbying by patient groups. The underlying literature provides the best sources. Lecanemab has its own article; anything more than what we have here now is UNDUE, until/unless Alzheimer's reviews give it coverage and discussion. We don't have to play political games with medications on Wikipedia; WP:MEDRS tells us what the best sources are. The appropriate place for exploring detail about the medication is at its own article; until/unless Alzheimer's reviews cover it, this is not the right place for extended content about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting System of Organization for Late Onset Section

I had this with late onset, but it was deleted. However, if someone can add this system of organizing late onset by age, genetics, and family history, I would think it would help.

Here is what was here before it was deleted:

Risks for late onset Alzheimer's

The greatest risk for late-onset Alzheimer's are age, genetics, and a family history of having had the disease.

• Age- The greatest of these three risks. 33% of those 85 and older have Alzheimer's dementia.
• Genetics- Of the possible genes creating a risk for the disease, APOE-e4 poses the greatest risk.
• Family History- One study found that a parent having dementia poses a great risk than having the APOE-e4 gene.

Starlighsky (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Media

Hello everyone! I'm a student at BYU-I. I am in Adult Development this semester and we are helping with wikipedia articles! I am so excited to learn. This is all in my own opinion and do not plan on changing anything, I just want to put this out there. The media section of this article seems a little random and unneeded. Is there a reason why that sections is in there? I think it would make more since to just take it out because it does not add to the facts of AD it's just a very random section of information people do not need to understand this disease. Again I do not plan on changing anything, Thank you for your time and keep up the great work! Katiegirl5o5 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:MEDSECTIONS. I would agree that reducing it to non-primary source mentions would be appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Computer-aided diagnosis

@SandyGeorgia: I added an excerpt describing computer-aided diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Do we need consensus in order to include this topic in the article? Jarble (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources? I've never seen it mentioned in a broad overview, making it UNDUE here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease and oral health

This Wikipedia article doesn't mention the role of gum disease in the development of Alzheimer's disease. Jarble (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia typically uses secondary sources, not primary studies to source content. If you can access the full content of PMID 32097126, which is a 2020 secondary review, it might be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The article also doesn't mention the possible role of other viral infections in the development of this disease. Should any of these hypotheses be mentioned in this section? Jarble (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It's probably WP:UNDUE unless there is a lot more than scattered primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Cause of Alzheimer’s

Not able to be sure, as I have not talk with anyone about this, but I am guessing that Alzheimer’s is caused by another person dying, like their lover or the flu shot for most occasions.

Why do I say this? It is because, if I was told correctly, white blood cells end up expanding to ten times the area of what it was when it was alive. That could be a big problem if they are stored in the mind. It would cause the person to have problems using their brain in the area that the fat was at if the white blood cells died, which would happen if the person it came from passed away.

Another thing is do we store them in our brains or somewhere else? I know we keep them in our bodies because we get healthier and do not loose it. If we did we would feel noticeable feelings of weaker, tired, and sickness but only if the person that it came from dies.

We do not make another persons white blood cells either, so we have to store them somewhere in our bodies. If we made them we would be clearer in the output of our cum the stronger we got.

Also it would not be noticeable right away, because it would take time for the white blood cells to expand. They might want to ask look into asking people that either have had it or know people that had it to see how long it would take for the Alzheimer’s to set in after the maker of the white blood cells had passed. 166.181.84.251 (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 6

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trijanas (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Trijanas (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Update this page to keep up with current Research

I have been looking at "Management" section of this article and it seems to need some help keeping up with current research of what treatment options are available whether they are options such as medications, caregiving options, etc. Jenna.Hill1 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

this can only take place after death.[20]

This is not true. Brain biopsy is done in living patients and provides tissue for biopsy. Although Brian biopsies are never done to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease, they are done for tumors and infections in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. This should be changed to reflect the possibility of tissue diagnosis in living patients. Huntbobo (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that more tissue is needed than would be supplied by a biopsy.

The reference that was on that sentence didn't seem to mention post mortem examination, but two papers cited later in the article (both of which are quite recent, 2020) clearly state that definitive or gold-standard diagnosis is post mortem, so I have moved those citations to this sentence. Mgp28 (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

update section with current

I found an article that explains what is talked about in the late onset section. Do you think this article would work as a medical article?

Andrade-Guerrero, J., Santiago-Balmaseda, A., Jeronimo-Aguilar, P., Vargas-Rodríguez, I., Cadena-Suárez, A. R., Sánchez-Garibay, C., Pozo-Molina, G., Méndez-Catalá, C. F., Cardenas-Aguayo, M. D., Diaz-Cintra, S., Pacheco-Herrero, M., Luna-Muñoz, J., & Soto-Rojas, L. O. (2023). Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Overview of Its Genetics. International journal of molecular sciences, 24(4), 3754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043754 Charliecougar (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not know why the Andrade-Guerrero et al (2023) article would not "work as a medical article." The opening box on this Talk page says: guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. I read the 2023 review and am actively involved with a forum for Alzheimer's patients and Carers. On this forum we DO discuss the latest research, and as one of the active members (and chemistry PhD) I can say that the 2023 review is of high quality. 2A01:E0A:149:BEB0:A95E:D250:282B:AE2 (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of precision medicine approaches from Research directions

Regarding this change, I would like to ask for clarification on the following questions:

• How is WP:SYNTH applicable here?
• Do we need WP:MEDREV for stating what research is being conducted?
• Why are the following references not WP:MEDREV?
• Why would the content on machine learning algorithms be kept if the content on precision medicine is not?

@Zefr I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on these questions. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the section as WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM (also see WP:MEDORDER recommendation). At every FA I've written, I have found it possible to cite the "Research directions" section to broad secondary reviews about research directions (see for example Dementia with Lewy bodies#Research directions -- that is, not about the researched issue per se); we have to take care these sections not become trivia or promotional pushes of every bit of research being conducted, rather stay focused on what literature reviews indicate specifically are the important research directions. Exceptions have been made in the past for highly publicized new or research findings based on large and well-controlled samples that got pushed in broadsheet news, but adding even those makes me uncomfortable (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! It makes sense for the most part, but I would like to point out that there is a really fine line between "broad secondary reviews about research directions" and ones "about the researched issue per se" in this case, as precision medicine is quite a broad area itself. Similarly, it is challenging to keep the balance between WP:NOTNEWS and up-to-date content (WP:MEDDATE), and I would argue that mentioning precision medicine would greatly improve the latter aspect of the article, since it seems to me that currently, precision medicine is the only at least somewhat promising research area.

I have 2 followup questions:

• Do you know any secondary reviews about research directions that are also recent? What do you think about this one? [3]
• Based on this, should the content on the machine learning algorithms be removed as well?

Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy's skeptical assessment. "Precision" medicine is more generally "personalized" medicine which has been ongoing in assessment of AD for decades with disappointingly little progress of use to patients and their families. In your 3 sources, is there anything that can be considered on the edge a research breakthrough for diagnostic or treatment procedures? No. The sources seemed cherry-picked and were used in the original sentence to project a cure, which we all hope would occur, but does not exist.

This MEDORG review on personalized medicine points out that it "is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice." Research showing progress and refinement of these methods would justify a sentence, but I am unaware of such a source.

The machine learning report was a real-world test on electronic records for predicting AD risk, published by a multicenter expert team. It seems reasonable to include mention of a rapidly-developing technology to improve AD risk assessment. Zefr (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is true "assessment of AD for decades with disappointingly little progress", we should definitely include it in the article, but what I've seen in the original 5 sources is that it's still very much being researched now and there are even some good preliminary results, in particular this pilot trial: .

Here's a quote on which I would base this content: "The future of PM in AD is promising, as research continues to identify new biomarkers and targeted therapies.", from .

"The sources seemed cherry-picked": I tried to look for relatively recent reviews on Alzheimer's research, and I found this one: [4], which also mentions precision medicine. Please let me know if you have a better one that's also recent - the one you linked is not within 5 years and this is a heavily researched area so WP:MEDDATE definitely applies.

As for calling it "a cure", we can refine the sentence, but I think it would be important to include it in some way. I would also consider precision medicine a "rapidly-developing technology", just like machine learning-based prediction.

Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bendegúz Ács; I remembered that back in early March I’ve suggested you to be bold when editing the articles. I’m so glad that you didn’t follow my advice closely and edit as bold as I did :-) <well actually I just wanted to add a link, but I don’t know why it became “bold” at the end ... anyway>

Sorry for having set those not-so-examplary examples, but as you can see, I’ve tried my best ... and IMO the so-called “walled garden” (as someone had told me) is probably becoming a better place .. slowly ..

I enjoyed reading this and the other links that you posted. And your edit to the article inspired me to do a search which finds this and this, which I really really like. Thanks so much.

Yes, precision medicine and its use in AD has been under active research and has got the attention from government(s), as evidenced by the external links I added to to Precision medicine recently. There seems to be phase 3 clinical trial in the US too. I’m not sure if the links I found will be of any use. I do agree with you that it’s important to have precision medicine included in some way. But, as I’m not sure if *my advice* will do any good ;-) I’d better let others weigh in. Best, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It was definitely good advice in general, but there are certain exceptions it seems, especially related to non-conventional medicine. So I've been trying to take a middle-ground approach where I do make a few bold (controversial) edits like this one, but most of my effort is not spent on these, but on getting familiar with articles, editing styles and policies instead, both by making less controversial edits and by observing what others do. I totally get what you mean by the "walled garden", and I also agree that it's slowly improving.

I'm glad you like these sources, I do too! To me, it seems like precision medicine is the only promising research direction currently, but I'd be more than happy to see other approaches show promise as well.

I'm planning to read a bit more about the topic, as well as try to find more (and "better") sources just to make sure I'm also not missing anything, and then come up with a suggestion that will hopefully move us toward a better consensus. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References