This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

38/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet

Plain-language summary

Introduction : This review evaluates the novel strategy of treating Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease (AD and PD) withdrugs that initially have been developed to treat type 2 diabetes. As insulin signalling has been found to be de-sensitized in the brains of patients, drugs that can re-sensitize insulin signalling have been tested to evaluate if this strategy can alter disease progression. Areas covered : The review will give an overview of preclinical and clinical tests in AD and PD of drugs activating insulin receptors, glucagon-like peptide -1 (GLP-1) receptors, and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptors. Expert opinion : Insulin, GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonists have shown good effects in preclinical studies. First clinical trials in MCI/AD patients have shown that insulin can improve on key pathological symptoms of AD such as memory impairment, brain activity, neuronal energy utilization, and inflammation markers. A GLP-1 receptor agonist has shown disease-modifying effects in PD patients, and first pilot studies have shown encouraging effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in AD patients. Novel dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists that cross the blood brain barrier show superior neuroprotective effects compared to single GLP-1 or GIP receptor agonists, and show great promise as novel treatments of AD and PD.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Hölscher, C. (2020). Brain insulin resistance: role in neurodegenerative disease and potential for targeting. Expert opinion on investigational drugs. https://doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2020.1738383

Vancouver

Hölscher C. Brain insulin resistance: role in neurodegenerative disease and potential for targeting. Expert opinion on investigational drugs. 2020. doi:10.1080/13543784.2020.1738383. PMID: 32175781.

BibTeX

@article{holscher2020-32175781,
  author  = {Hölscher, C.},
  title   = {{Brain insulin resistance: role in neurodegenerative disease and potential for targeting}},
  journal = {Expert opinion on investigational drugs},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1080/13543784.2020.1738383},
  pmid    = {32175781},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2020.1738383}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

First clinical trials in MCI/AD patients have shown that insulin can improve on key pathological symptoms of AD such as memory impairment, brain activity, neuronal energy utilization, and inflammation markers.
Novel dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists that cross the blood brain barrier show superior neuroprotective effects compared to single GLP-1 or GIP receptor agonists, and show great promise as novel treatments of AD and PD.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 38/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Expert opinion on investigational drugs)
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	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32175781)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	22 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total	38 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Drug development from nearby years

Also tagged “peptide-1”

285 studies in the library carry the topic tag “peptide-1”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 285 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →