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.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Genetics and APOE

Late-life depression (LLD) is increasingly recognized as a complex multisystem disorder associated with accelerated biological aging, impaired physiological resilience, frailty, and an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Although growing evidence supports the close relationship between depression, frailty, and neurodegeneration, the molecular mechanisms underlying this continuum remain incompletely understood. In particular, conventional clinical and imaging biomarkers capture established disease but provide limited insight into the systemic biological processes that precede neurodegeneration. Proteomics has emerged as a powerful systems biology approach capable of characterizing the dynamic molecular networks involved in aging, neuropsychiatric disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases. Recent advances in high-throughput mass spectrometry have identified alterations in proteins associated with chronic inflammation, complement activation, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, lipid metabolism, synaptic integrity, neurotrophic signaling, and cellular senescence across LLD, frailty, cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease (AD). These convergent proteomic signatures suggest that these conditions may share common biological pathways reflecting progressive loss of physiological resilience rather than independent pathological entities. In this review, we examine the current evidence supporting shared proteomic mechanisms linking LLD, frailty, cognitive frailty (CF), and neurodegeneration. We discuss the potential integration of large-scale proteomic profiling with established AD biomarkers within the AT(N) framework to improve biological characterization, early risk stratification, and prediction of cognitive decline. Particular emphasis is placed on CF as a transitional and potentially modifiable phenotype in which systemic molecular dysregulation precedes overt neurodegeneration. By integrating evidence from geroscience, neuropsychiatry, and proteomics, we propose that proteomic profiling can redefine LLD and frailty as manifestations of a common biological vulnerability continuum. This systems-level perspective may facilitate the identification of individuals at high risk for dementia, support the development of multimodal biomarker panels, and advance precision neuropsychiatry through earlier diagnosis and personalized preventive interventions.

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

APA 7th

Mollica, A., Leccisotti, I., Moretti, M. C., Bonfitto, I., Laurello, R., Carapellese, M., et al. (2026). Proteomic Signatures of Vulnerability Across Late-Life Depression, Frailty, and Neurodegeneration. Preprints.org. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202610.1843.v1

Vancouver

Mollica A, Leccisotti I, Moretti MC, Bonfitto I, Laurello R, Carapellese M, et al. Proteomic Signatures of Vulnerability Across Late-Life Depression, Frailty, and Neurodegeneration. Preprints.org. 2026. doi:10.20944/preprints202610.1843.v1.

BibTeX

@article{mollica2026-c402a472,
  author  = {Mollica, A. and Leccisotti, I. and Moretti, M. C. and Bonfitto, I. and Laurello, R. and Carapellese, M. and De Giorgi, A. and Altamura, M. and others},
  title   = {{Proteomic Signatures of Vulnerability Across Late-Life Depression, Frailty, and Neurodegeneration}},
  journal = {Preprints.org},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.20944/preprints202610.1843.v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202610.1843.v1}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / 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; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 13 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 21 of 100. Raw total 21 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 21 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 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, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Preprints.org)
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 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 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 13 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100.
Total 21 / 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.

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

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “single-nucleus”

274 studies in the library carry the topic tag “single-nucleus”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 274 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →