Talk:Alzheimer's disease

Wiki Education assignment: Perception
— Assignment last updated by Isamelia6 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of precision medicine approaches from Research directions
Regarding this change, I would like to ask for clarification on the following questions:
 * How is WP:SYNTH applicable here?
 * Do we need WP:MEDREV for stating what research is being conducted?
 * Why are the following references not WP:MEDREV?
 * Why would the content on machine learning algorithms be kept if the content on precision medicine is not?

@Zefr I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on these questions. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 -- 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).  Sandy Georgia  (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?
 * Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @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 :-) 
 * 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)

Source [12] - Life span
Broken link. Voxit (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reporting, I've fixed it by replacing the original reference with some newer and more precise ones. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"Brain rot" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brain_rot&redirect=no 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  until a consensus is reached. Based5290 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Amyloid beta theory under scrutiny
Should the article be updated to reflect the doubts about the amyloid beta plaque theory? The paper on which that theory is based is under investigation for fraud now. Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease 2A02:A449:F9AB:0:D0DE:BAA9:81BC:728A (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * As described in Sylvain Lesné, 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 overall 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 overall literature reviews of the condition. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: considering this update from Piller (and the changes I just made at Sylvain Lesné), it seems there is some disagreement as to whether the findings cast doubt upon the prevailing amyloid hypothesis. Considering this is the most highly cited paper ever retracted, perhaps a one- or two- sentence summary at Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer%27s_disease is warranted? I'm out of time for today, and although I did (partially) update Lesné, I haven't yet updated Karen Ashe, in case you have time to work there -- I am going to be fairly busy through Friday. Thanks for keeping up with this! I still don't find it necessary to make changes to this article, as we don't overplay the amyloid hypothesis here, and it is covered in detail at the Biochemistry of article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've also been busy, but I saw you made edits in both of those pages, I've reviewed them and they're great! I agree that Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer's_disease is a good place to mention the retraction now. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Nervous coordination full notes
Full chapter 37.111.166.41 (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)