Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:As described in ], the consensus seems to be that the alleged manipulation would not invalidate most of the research into the amyloid hypothesis. But since the report and the consequences have garnered significant attention from researchers as well as the general public, it would perhaps be a good improvement to mention it briefly in the ]. What do you think @]? (pinging you since you wrote most of the content covering this investigation). ] (]) 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:As described in ], the consensus seems to be that the alleged manipulation would not invalidate most of the research into the amyloid hypothesis. But since the report and the consequences have garnered significant attention from researchers as well as the general public, it would perhaps be a good improvement to mention it briefly in the ]. What do you think @]? (pinging you since you wrote most of the content covering this investigation). ] (]) 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the ping ... I agree with Bendeguz Acs that the sources indicate the alleged manipulation has little impact on most research, hence is not worthy of mention in the main article. As to whether it warrants a mention in the history section, my approach (particularly for a former ]) is to include only that which has been covered by secondary overview literature reviews -- the Lesne/Ashe issue has not risen to that level yet. Since this article has fallen from FA status, I won't strenuously object if it is added to History, but the standard I prefer is to base History on mention in overview literature reviews of the condition. ] (]) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the ping ... I agree with Bendeguz Acs that the sources indicate the alleged manipulation has little impact on most research, hence is not worthy of mention in the main article. As to whether it warrants a mention in the History section, my approach (particularly for a former ]) is to include only that which has been covered by secondary overview literature reviews -- the Lesne/Ashe issue has not risen to that level yet. Since this article has fallen from FA status, I won't strenuously object if it is added to History, but the standard I prefer is to base History on mention in overview literature reviews of the condition. ] (]) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Alzheimer's disease is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 21, 2008.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science
Alzheimer's disease is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Fymat, Alain L: International Institute of Medicine and Science (March 3, 2018), Alzheimer’s Disease: A Review (PDF), Scientia Ricerca
Listen to this page (46 minutes)This audio file was created from a revision of this page dated 12 September 2008 (2008-09-12), and does not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
]
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
update section with current
I found an article that explains what is talked about in the late onset section. Do you think this article would work as a medical article?
Andrade-Guerrero, J., Santiago-Balmaseda, A., Jeronimo-Aguilar, P., Vargas-Rodríguez, I., Cadena-Suárez, A. R., Sánchez-Garibay, C., Pozo-Molina, G., Méndez-Catalá, C. F., Cardenas-Aguayo, M. D., Diaz-Cintra, S., Pacheco-Herrero, M., Luna-Muñoz, J., & Soto-Rojas, L. O. (2023). Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Overview of Its Genetics. International journal of molecular sciences, 24(4), 3754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043754 Charliecougar (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I would not know why the Andrade-Guerrero et al (2023) article would not "work as a medical article." The opening box on this Talk page says: guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. I read the 2023 review and am actively involved with a forum for Alzheimer's patients and Carers. On this forum we DO discuss the latest research, and as one of the active members (and chemistry PhD) I can say that the 2023 review is of high quality. 2A01:E0A:149:BEB0:A95E:D250:282B:AE2 (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
this can only take place after death.
This is not true. Brain biopsy is done in living patients and provides tissue for biopsy. Although Brian biopsies are never done to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease, they are done for tumors and infections in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. This should be changed to reflect the possibility of tissue diagnosis in living patients. Huntbobo (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe that more tissue is needed than would be supplied by a biopsy.
The reference that was on that sentence didn't seem to mention post mortem examination, but two papers cited later in the article (both of which are quite recent, 2020) clearly state that definitive or gold-standard diagnosis is post mortem, so I have moved those citations to this sentence. Mgp28 (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Perception
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eg2619 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PowdersPOWPOW.
I agree with removal of the section as WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM (also see WP:MEDORDER recommendation). At every FA I've written, I have found it possible to cite the "Research directions" section to broad secondary reviews about research directions (see for example Dementia with Lewy bodies#Research directions -- that is, not about the researched issue per se); we have to take care these sections not become trivia or promotional pushes of every bit of research being conducted, rather stay focused on what literature reviews indicate specifically are the important research directions. Exceptions have been made in the past for highly publicized new or research findings based on large and well-controlled samples that got pushed in broadsheet news, but adding even those makes me uncomfortable (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for replying! It makes sense for the most part, but I would like to point out that there is a really fine line between "broad secondary reviews about research directions" and ones "about the researched issue per se" in this case, as precision medicine is quite a broad area itself. Similarly, it is challenging to keep the balance between WP:NOTNEWS and up-to-date content (WP:MEDDATE), and I would argue that mentioning precision medicine would greatly improve the latter aspect of the article, since it seems to me that currently, precision medicine is the only at least somewhat promising research area.
I have 2 followup questions:
Do you know any secondary reviews about research directions that are also recent? What do you think about this one?
Based on this, should the content on the machine learning algorithms be removed as well?
I agree with Sandy's skeptical assessment. "Precision" medicine is more generally "personalized" medicine which has been ongoing in assessment of AD for decades with disappointingly little progress of use to patients and their families. In your 3 sources, is there anything that can be considered on the edge a research breakthrough for diagnostic or treatment procedures? No. The sources seemed cherry-picked and were used in the original sentence to project a cure, which we all hope would occur, but does not exist.
This MEDORG review on personalized medicine points out that it "is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice." Research showing progress and refinement of these methods would justify a sentence, but I am unaware of such a source.
The machine learning report was a real-world test on electronic records for predicting AD risk, published by a multicenter expert team. It seems reasonable to include mention of a rapidly-developing technology to improve AD risk assessment. Zefr (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If this is true "assessment of AD for decades with disappointingly little progress", we should definitely include it in the article, but what I've seen in the original 5 sources is that it's still very much being researched now and there are even some good preliminary results, in particular this pilot trial: .
Here's a quote on which I would base this content: "The future of PM in AD is promising, as research continues to identify new biomarkers and targeted therapies.", from .
"The sources seemed cherry-picked": I tried to look for relatively recent reviews on Alzheimer's research, and I found this one: , which also mentions precision medicine. Please let me know if you have a better one that's also recent - the one you linked is not within 5 years and this is a heavily researched area so WP:MEDDATE definitely applies.
As for calling it "a cure", we can refine the sentence, but I think it would be important to include it in some way. I would also consider precision medicine a "rapidly-developing technology", just like machine learning-based prediction.
@Bendegúz Ács; I remembered that back in early March I’ve suggested you to be bold when editing the articles. I’m so glad that you didn’t follow my advice closely and edit as bold as I did :-) <well actually I just wanted to add a link, but I don’t know why it became “bold” at the end ... anyway>
Sorry for having set those not-so-examplary examples, but as you can see, I’ve tried my best ... and IMO the so-called “walled garden” (as someone had told me) is probably becoming a better place .. slowly ..
I enjoyed reading this and the other links that you posted. And your edit to the article inspired me to do a search which finds this and this, which I really really like. Thanks so much.
Yes, precision medicine and its use in AD has been under active research and has got the attention from government(s), as evidenced by the external links I added to to Precision medicine recently. There seems to be phase 3 clinical trial in the US too. I’m not sure if the links I found will be of any use. I do agree with you that it’s important to have precision medicine included in some way. But, as I’m not sure if *my advice* will do any good ;-) I’d better let others weigh in. Best, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
It was definitely good advice in general, but there are certain exceptions it seems, especially related to non-conventional medicine. So I've been trying to take a middle-ground approach where I do make a few bold (controversial) edits like this one, but most of my effort is not spent on these, but on getting familiar with articles, editing styles and policies instead, both by making less controversial edits and by observing what others do. I totally get what you mean by the "walled garden", and I also agree that it's slowly improving.
I'm glad you like these sources, I do too! To me, it seems like precision medicine is the only promising research direction currently, but I'd be more than happy to see other approaches show promise as well.
I'm planning to read a bit more about the topic, as well as try to find more (and "better") sources just to make sure I'm also not missing anything, and then come up with a suggestion that will hopefully move us toward a better consensus. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
As described in Sylvain Lesné#Impact on Alzheimer's research, the consensus seems to be that the alleged manipulation would not invalidate most of the research into the amyloid hypothesis. But since the report and the consequences have garnered significant attention from researchers as well as the general public, it would perhaps be a good improvement to mention it briefly in the history section. What do you think @SandyGeorgia? (pinging you since you wrote most of the content covering this investigation). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping ... I agree with Bendeguz Acs that the sources indicate the alleged manipulation has little impact on most research, hence is not worthy of mention in the main article. As to whether it warrants a mention in the History section, my approach (particularly for a former featured article) is to include only that which has been covered by secondary overview literature reviews -- the Lesne/Ashe issue has not risen to that level yet. Since this article has fallen from FA status, I won't strenuously object if it is added to History, but the standard I prefer is to base History on mention in overview literature reviews of the condition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
This audio file was created from a revision of this page dated 12 September 2008 (2008-09-12), and does not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eg2619 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PowdersPOWPOW.
The redirect Brain rot has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21 § Brain rot until a consensus is reached. Based5290 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)