Home › Research › Drug development
A Proposal to Make Biomedical Research into Alzheimer's Disease More Democratic Following an International Survey with Researchers
Daly T, Houot M, Barberousse A, Petit A, Epelbaum S.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports, 2021-08-06
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Therapeutic research into Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been dominated by the amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH) since the 1990s. However, targeting amyloid in AD patients has not yet resulted in highly significant disease-modifying effects. Furthermore, other promising theories of AD etiology exist. Objective We sought to directly investigate whether the ACH still dominates the opinions of researchers working on AD and explore the implications of this question for future directions of research. Methods During 2019, we undertook an international survey promoted with the help of the Alzheimer's Association with questions on theories and treatments of AD. Further efforts to promote a similar study in 2021 did not recruit a significant number of participants. Results 173 researchers took part in the 2019 survey, 22% of which held "pro-ACH" opinions, tended to have more publications, were more likely to be male, and over 60. Thus, pro-ACH may now be a minority opinion in the field but is nevertheless the hypothesis on which the most clinical trials are based, suggestive of a representation bias. Popular vote of all 173 participants suggested that lifestyle treatments and anti-tau drugs were a source of more therapeutic optimism than anti-amyloid treatments. Conclusion We propose a more democratic research structure which increases the likelihood that promising theories are published and funded fairly, promotes a broader scientific view of AD, and reduces the larger community's dependence on a fragile economic model.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Daly, T., Houot, M., Barberousse, A., Petit, A., & Epelbaum, S. (2021). A Proposal to Make Biomedical Research into Alzheimer's Disease More Democratic Following an International Survey with Researchers. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. https://doi.org/10.3233/adr-210030
Vancouver
Daly T, Houot M, Barberousse A, Petit A, Epelbaum S. A Proposal to Make Biomedical Research into Alzheimer's Disease More Democratic Following an International Survey with Researchers. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. 2021. doi:10.3233/adr-210030. PMID: 34632301.
BibTeX
@article{daly2021-34632301,
author = {Daly, T. and Houot, M. and Barberousse, A. and Petit, A. and Epelbaum, S.},
title = {{A Proposal to Make Biomedical Research into Alzheimer's Disease More Democratic Following an International Survey with Researchers}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3233/adr-210030},
pmid = {34632301},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/adr-210030}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- However, targeting amyloid in AD patients has not yet resulted in highly significant disease-modifying effects.
- Further efforts to promote a similar study in 2021 did not recruit a significant number of participants.
- Results 173 researchers took part in the 2019 survey, 22% of which held "pro-ACH" opinions, tended to have more publications, were more likely to be male, and over 60.
- Popular vote of all 173 participants suggested that lifestyle treatments and anti-tau drugs were a source of more therapeutic optimism than anti-amyloid treatments.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants173
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 173 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34632301) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development
Also in Drug development
95 studies in the library are filed under Drug development with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Drug development hub.