Home › Research › Drug development
Metabolic Dysfunction in Alzheimer's Disease: From Basic Neurobiology to Clinical Approaches
Clarke JR, Ribeiro FC, Frozza RL, De Felice FG, Lourenco MV.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2018-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
Clinical trials have extensively failed to find effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) so far. Even after decades of AD research, there are still limited options for treating dementia. Mounting evidence has indicated that AD patients develop central and peripheral metabolic dysfunction, and the underpinnings of such events have recently begun to emerge. Basic and preclinical studies have unveiled key pathophysiological mechanisms that include aberrant brain stress signaling, inflammation, and impaired insulin sensitivity. These findings are in accordance with clinical and neuropathological data suggesting that AD patients undergo central and peripheral metabolic deregulation. Here, we review recent basic and clinical findings indicating that metabolic defects are central to AD pathophysiology. We further propose a view for future therapeutics that incorporates metabolic defects as a core feature of AD pathogenesis. This approach could improve disease understanding and therapy development through drug repurposing and/or identification of novel metabolic targets.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Clarke, JR., Ribeiro, F. C., Frozza, R. L., De Felice, F. G., & Lourenco, M. V. (2018). Metabolic Dysfunction in Alzheimer's Disease: From Basic Neurobiology to Clinical Approaches. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-179911
Vancouver
Clarke JR, Ribeiro FC, Frozza RL, De Felice FG, Lourenco MV. Metabolic Dysfunction in Alzheimer's Disease: From Basic Neurobiology to Clinical Approaches. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2018. doi:10.3233/jad-179911. PMID: 29562518.
BibTeX
@article{clarke2018-29562518,
author = {Clarke, JR. and Ribeiro, F. C. and Frozza, R. L. and De Felice, F. G. and Lourenco, M. V.},
title = {{Metabolic Dysfunction in Alzheimer's Disease: From Basic Neurobiology to Clinical Approaches}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.3233/jad-179911},
pmid = {29562518},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-179911}
}
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
- Mounting evidence has indicated that AD patients develop central and peripheral metabolic dysfunction, and the underpinnings of such events have recently begun to emerge.
- These findings are in accordance with clinical and neuropathological data suggesting that AD patients undergo central and peripheral metabolic deregulation.
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 (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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — 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 29562518) |
| 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.