Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Disease mechanisms

Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet

Given the complex bidirectional communication system that exists between the gut microbiome and the brain, there is growing interest in the gut microbiome as a novel and potentially modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Gut dysbiosis has been implicated in the pathogenesis and progression of AD by initiating and prolonging neuroinflammatory processes. The metabolites of gut microbiota appear to be critical in the mechanism of the gut-brain axis. Gut microbiota metabolites, such as trimethylamine-n-oxide, lipopolysaccharide, and short chain fatty acids, are suggested to mediate systemic inflammation and intracerebral amyloidosis via endothelial dysfunction. Emerging data suggest that the fungal microbiota (mycobiome) may also influence AD pathology. Importantly, 60% of variation in the gut microbiome is attributable to diet, therefore modulating the gut microbiome through dietary means could be an effective approach to reduce AD risk. Given that people do not eat isolated nutrients and instead consume a diverse range of foods and combinations of nutrients that are likely to be interactive, studying the effects of whole diets provides the opportunity to account for the interactions between different nutrients. Thus, dietary patterns may be more predictive of a real-life effect on gut microbiome and AD risk than foods or nutrients in isolation. Accumulating evidence from experimental and animal studies also show potential effects of gut microbiome on AD pathogenesis. However, data from human dietary interventions are lacking. Well-designed intervention studies are needed in diverse populations to determine the influence of diet on gut microbiome and inform the development of effective dietary strategies for prevention of AD.

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

APA 7th

Fairley, A., Stewart, C. J., Cassidy, A., Woodside, J. V., & McEvoy, C. T. (2022). Diet Patterns, the Gut Microbiome, and Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-220205

Vancouver

Fairley A, Stewart CJ, Cassidy A, Woodside JV, McEvoy CT. Diet Patterns, the Gut Microbiome, and Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2022. doi:10.3233/jad-220205. PMID: 35634849.

BibTeX

@article{fairley2022-35634849,
  author  = {Fairley, Andrea and Stewart, Christopher J and Cassidy, Aedín and Woodside, Jayne V and McEvoy, Claire T},
  title   = {{Diet Patterns, the Gut Microbiome, and Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-220205},
  pmid    = {35634849},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-220205}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 23 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.23 of the 56 points we could judge = 41 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
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 2022 — within 6 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)
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 35634849)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 23 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 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 Disease mechanisms

Also tagged “dysbiosis”

173 studies in the library carry the topic tag “dysbiosis”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 173 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Disease mechanisms

See all studies in Disease mechanisms →