Home › Research › Prevention and risk
Magnetic Field–Enhanced Docosahexaenoic Acid Delivery for Acetylcholine Restoration in Alzheimer’s Disease: an In Silico Study
Dasgupta M, Konar A, Nagar A.. bioRxiv, 2026-10-05
Topic: Disease mechanisms in lab and animal studies
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is characterised by the progressive depletion of Acetylcholine (ACh), a neurotransmitter essential for cognition and synaptic communication. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the predominant omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid in neuronal membranes, raises cerebral ACh and supports cholinergic transmission, but its therapeutic efficacy is limited by poor blood–brain barrier permeability and slow passive diffusion. This work addresses these limitations through a closed form mathematical model coupling the spatiotemporal dynamics of DHA diffusion and ACh synthesis under an externally applied static magnetic field. Because DHA is diamagnetically anisotropic, it aligns along the field axis through diamagnetic torque while body cells form field-aligned linear arrays; together these effects raise the effective diffusion coefficient of DHA. At a representative observation point, 0.5 cm, magnetic field–assisted transport reduces the time for ACh to reach a therapeutic threshold by 83.3%, from 10.55 s to 1.76 s. This reduction is spatially uniform across the modelled range of 0–3.0 cm from the source, with the absolute saving growing from 6.71 s at the source to 19.21 s at 3.0 cm. Co-evolution analysis reveals the mechanism: by the end of a 2.0 s window the field elevates DHA 7.39-fold relative to baseline, driving ACh to 133.7% of threshold versus only 18.1% without the field. A Brain Computer Interface (BCI)-based closed-loop dosing framework is additionally proposed for future clinical validation. These findings establish a quantitatively grounded theoretical basis for magnetically enhanced DHA therapy as an approach to cholinergic restoration in AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dasgupta, M., Konar, A., & Nagar, A. (2026). Magnetic Field–Enhanced Docosahexaenoic Acid Delivery for Acetylcholine Restoration in Alzheimer’s Disease: an In Silico Study. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.28.755051
Vancouver
Dasgupta M, Konar A, Nagar A. Magnetic Field–Enhanced Docosahexaenoic Acid Delivery for Acetylcholine Restoration in Alzheimer’s Disease: an In Silico Study. bioRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.28.755051.
BibTeX
@article{dasgupta2026-cfdd9ac7,
author = {Dasgupta, M. and Konar, A. and Nagar, A.},
title = {{Magnetic Field–Enhanced Docosahexaenoic Acid Delivery for Acetylcholine Restoration in Alzheimer’s Disease: an In Silico Study}},
journal = {bioRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.28.755051},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.28.755051}
}
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
- Co-evolution analysis reveals the mechanism: by the end of a 2.0 s window the field elevates DHA 7.39-fold relative to baseline, driving ACh to 133.7% of threshold versus only 18.1% without the field.
- These findings establish a quantitatively grounded theoretical basis for magnetically enhanced DHA therapy as an approach to cholinergic restoration in AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Effect size83.3%; 133.7%; 18.1%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 24 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 15 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 24 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (bioRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 15 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 15 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 24 out of 100. |
| Total | 24 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 Prevention and risk
Also tagged “repurposing”
234 studies in the library carry the topic tag “repurposing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 234 tagged studies.