Talk:Alzheimer's disease

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Translation / Neurology / Psychiatry Top‑importance
WikiProject icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Information from this article appears on Portal:Medicine in the Did you know section.
WikiProject iconNeuroscience High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
inactive
.
WikiProject iconDisability
WikiProject iconAlzheimer'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.
WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 6

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trijanas (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Trijanas (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update this page to keep up with current Research

I have been looking at "Management" section of this article and it seems to need some help keeping up with current research of what treatment options are available whether they are options such as medications, caregiving options, etc. Jenna.Hill1 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

this can only take place after death.[20]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Perception

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 6 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eg2619 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eg2619 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of precision medicine approaches from Research directions

Regarding this change, I would like to ask for clarification on the following questions:

@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)[reply]

I agree with removal of the section as
WP:RECENTISM). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
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: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:
Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [4].
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 [5].
"The sources seemed cherry-picked": I tried to look for relatively recent reviews on Alzheimer's research, and I found this one: [2], 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)[reply]
@
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)[reply
]
It was definitely good advice in general, but there are certain exceptions it seems, especially related to
"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)[reply]

References