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.

52/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Insulin resistance in brain and amyloidogenesis are principal pathological features of diabetes-related cognitive decline and development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). A growing body of evidence suggests that maintaining glucose under control in diabetic patients is beneficial for preventing AD development. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DDP4is) are a class of novel glucose-lowering medications through increasing insulin excretion and decreasing glucagon levels that have shown neuroprotective potential in recent studies. This review consolidates extant evidence from earlier and new studies investigating the association between DPP4i use, AD, and other cognitive outcomes. Beyond DPP4i's benefits in alleviating insulin resistance and glucose-lowering, underlying mechanisms for the potential neuroprotection with DPP4i medications were categorized into the following sections: (Ferrari et al., Physiol Rev, 2021, 101, 1,047-1,081): the benefits of DPP4is on directly ameliorating the burden of β-amyloid plaques and reducing the formation of neurofibrillary tangles; DPP4i increasing the bioactivity of neuroprotective DPP4 substrates including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and stromal-derived factor-1α (SDF-1α) etc.; pleiotropic effects of DPP4is on neuronal cells and intracerebral structure including anti-inflammation, anti-oxidation, and anti-apoptosis. We further revisited recently published epidemiological studies that provided supportive data to compliment preclinical evidence. Given that there remains a lack of completed randomized trials that aim at assessing the effect of DPP4is in preventing AD development and progression, this review is expected to provide a useful insight into DPP4 inhibition as a potential therapeutic target for AD prevention and treatment. The evidence is helpful for informing the rationales of future clinical research and guiding evidence-based clinical practice.

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

APA 7th

Jiang, X., Li, J., Yao, X., Ding, H., Gu, A., & Zhou, Z. (2024). Neuroprotective effects of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor on Alzheimer's disease: a narrative review. Frontiers in pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1361651

Vancouver

Jiang X, Li J, Yao X, Ding H, Gu A, Zhou Z. Neuroprotective effects of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor on Alzheimer's disease: a narrative review. Frontiers in pharmacology. 2024. doi:10.3389/fphar.2024.1361651. PMID: 38405664.

BibTeX

@article{jiang2024-38405664,
  author  = {Jiang, X. and Li, J. and Yao, X. and Ding, H. and Gu, A. and Zhou, Z.},
  title   = {{Neuroprotective effects of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor on Alzheimer's disease: a narrative review}},
  journal = {Frontiers in pharmacology},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.3389/fphar.2024.1361651},
  pmid    = {38405664},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1361651}
}

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 high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. 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

A growing body of evidence suggests that maintaining glucose under control in diabetic patients is beneficial for preventing AD development.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 52/100

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 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 (Frontiers in pharmacology)
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	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 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 38405664)
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.

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 “peptidase”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “peptidase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →