4 ms·

(1) We know that "pathological levels" does not always result in symptoms across many diseases. E.g. Plenty of people walking around with pathological levels of

(1) We know that "pathological levels" does not always result in symptoms across many diseases. E.g. Plenty of people walking around with pathological levels of coronavirus are asymptomatic. (2) Amyloid plaques are not the only thing that causes dementia. However genuine AD diagnoses are confirmed post mortem via autopsy and are typically assigned a BRAAK score (most large scale studies require plaque confirmation for cohort inclusion; i.e. AD definitionally requires amyloid presence). (3) From the large datasets I've worked with, BRAAK score and AD age of onset are HIGHLY correlated. I'm genuinely curious to hear what biomarkers are more correlated. (4) What is clear-er? (5) Agree LOAD and EOAD are not identical diseases.

nabla9 4y ago
>However genuine AD diagnoses are confirmed post mortem... inclusion; i.e. AD definitionally requires amyloid presence). Guidelines and diagnostic criteria based on amyloid-hypthotiesis is not good reference point if we question amyloid-hypthotiesis. >I'm genuinely curious to hear what biomarkers are more correlated. >original neuropathological guidelines for AD were built on the correlation of amyloid plaques and NFT counts to cognition, much research since has established amyloid plaques are less well correlated to the clinical and anatomical progression of AD than other pathologies, including synapse loss [266] and NFTs [184, 197]. ... evidence since has indicated neuritic plaques correlate to declining cognition better than do diffuse plaques [188], indicating that even if NFTs correlate better, plaques counts are still useful determinants of dementia severity. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-018-1918-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-018-1918-8 >(4) What is clear-er? There is evidence that appearance of NFTs, clusterin (protein) or vascular dysregulation. The problem is that procedures and hypotheses for disease progression are based on amyloid-hypthotiesis, so there is not enough work made to find earlier biomarkers.
- subroutine 4y ago
  NFT and Abeta are part of the traditional AD diagnosis. NFT studies have seen no lack of funding. But for the record, I do think tau plays a role. I'm not sold either way on ABeta or Tau (maybe both). "synapse loss" is a better correlate for dementia because, obviously. But synapse loss is the outcome of the disease, not the cause of the disease.
  - nabla9 4y ago
    The point is that evidence for amyloid-hypothesis is near non-existent unless you take it as a starting point and do circular reasoning. In clinical trials patients who show the biggest decrease in brain amyloid or tau are not correlated at all with any particular clinical improvement (small as they are). In mice you can prevent amyloids but don't prevent the disease.
    - subroutine 4y ago
      And your big brain idea is that it's all about the tangles not the plaques (but not NF tangles from tau mechanisms; it's actually hard to tell because the alt hypothesis you cited above basically say that it's not diffuse Abeta and NTF, instead it's ABeta and NFT inside neurons.
      - nabla9 4y ago
        We just don't know. The previous big brain idea just did not pan out.
        subroutine 4y ago
        I don't think mixed results from one or two clinical trials warrants a total pivot (see my first post). But, again, I'm not opposed to exploring novel avenues. Anyone who lives long enough will get dementia, so both broad and deep insights are certainly welcome.
        nabla9 4y ago
        > from one or two clinical trials warrants From one or two?? Cognitive outcomes of anti-amyloid-β monoclonal antibodies in patients with Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/alz.057778 https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.100... Had Enough, Eh? Come Back and Take What's Coming to You! https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/had-enough-eh https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/had-enough-eh

nabla9 4y ago

>However genuine AD diagnoses are confirmed post mortem... inclusion; i.e. AD definitionally requires amyloid presence). Guidelines and diagnostic criteria based on amyloid-hypthotiesis is not good reference point if we question amyloid-hypthotiesis. >I'm genuinely curious to hear what biomarkers are more correlated. >original neuropathological guidelines for AD were built on the correlation of amyloid plaques and NFT counts to cognition, much research since has established amyloid plaques are less well correlated to the clinical and anatomical progression of AD than other pathologies, including synapse loss [266] and NFTs [184, 197]. ... evidence since has indicated neuritic plaques correlate to declining cognition better than do diffuse plaques [188], indicating that even if NFTs correlate better, plaques counts are still useful determinants of dementia severity. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-018-1918-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-018-1918-8 >(4) What is clear-er? There is evidence that appearance of NFTs, clusterin (protein) or vascular dysregulation. The problem is that procedures and hypotheses for disease progression are based on amyloid-hypthotiesis, so there is not enough work made to find earlier biomarkers.

subroutine 4y ago
NFT and Abeta are part of the traditional AD diagnosis. NFT studies have seen no lack of funding. But for the record, I do think tau plays a role. I'm not sold either way on ABeta or Tau (maybe both). "synapse loss" is a better correlate for dementia because, obviously. But synapse loss is the outcome of the disease, not the cause of the disease.
- nabla9 4y ago
  The point is that evidence for amyloid-hypothesis is near non-existent unless you take it as a starting point and do circular reasoning. In clinical trials patients who show the biggest decrease in brain amyloid or tau are not correlated at all with any particular clinical improvement (small as they are). In mice you can prevent amyloids but don't prevent the disease.
  - subroutine 4y ago
    And your big brain idea is that it's all about the tangles not the plaques (but not NF tangles from tau mechanisms; it's actually hard to tell because the alt hypothesis you cited above basically say that it's not diffuse Abeta and NTF, instead it's ABeta and NFT inside neurons.
    - nabla9 4y ago
      We just don't know. The previous big brain idea just did not pan out.
      - subroutine 4y ago
        I don't think mixed results from one or two clinical trials warrants a total pivot (see my first post). But, again, I'm not opposed to exploring novel avenues. Anyone who lives long enough will get dementia, so both broad and deep insights are certainly welcome.
        nabla9 4y ago
        > from one or two clinical trials warrants From one or two?? Cognitive outcomes of anti-amyloid-β monoclonal antibodies in patients with Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/alz.057778 https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.100... Had Enough, Eh? Come Back and Take What's Coming to You! https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/had-enough-eh https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/had-enough-eh