This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot(talk | contribs) at 01:42, 26 August 2008(GimmeBot updating {{ArticleHistory}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:42, 26 August 2008 by GimmeBot(talk | contribs)(GimmeBot updating {{ArticleHistory}})
This 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Why is aluminum not mentioned at all in the article? It's been in the news in connection with Alzheimer's disease for more than 15 years. Even if the link has been debunked, it should at least be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned just above, aluminum should at least be mentioned in the article, due to the 15+ years of widespread public discussion of this issue. At present, the word doesn't appear in the text of the article even once. Badagnani (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was in the article once, but it was "no link between AD and aluminum." We would spend paragraphs saying what isn't linked to it. I don't think it belongs, but that's my opinion. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users will look for information at our supposedly encyclopedic article regarding aluminum, due to the 15+ years of news stories about this, yet not find a single mention of the metal in the supposedly encyclopedic article. I am one such user. Badagnani (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But aluminum has no causal effect on AD. I'm not sure how encyclopedic it can be to mention that for everything that is out there. And frankly, I haven't heard anything in the news for the past 10 years regarding aluminum and AD. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search of news articles on aluminum and AD over the past 20 years. The bulk of articles were written between 1989 and 1993. The last article, in a regular news outlet, that discussed the link was in 1997, over 10 years ago. The idea was debunked 15 years ago, at least. An encyclopedia should not be a list of fringe ideas, even if they were debunked. We should move on.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our users will look for information about Alzheimer's disease and aluminum and expect to find information about this here. Omitting all mention of aluminum from the article does not do them a service. Badagnani (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which database did you scan? Lexis-Nexis gives 535 hits in the last 10 years alone, including the following:
The Alzheimer's riddle: Lone medical researcher insists aluminum must be the culprit
The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), October 30, 2000, Monday, FINAL, Living; E2, 1168 words, KATHERINE DEDYNA
2. HEALTH HELPLINE - YOURSELF; ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE.
Sunday Express, February 11, 2001, FEATS; Pg. 56, 284 words, MARY SALMON
3. A QUESTION OF HEALTH
The Independent (London), December 11, 2002, Thursday, FEATURES; Pg. 11, 668 words, Dr Fred Kavalier
4. Explore high-risk factors behind Alzheimer's disease
USA TODAY, January 31, 2005, Monday,, 196 words
5. Alzheimer's patients absorb more dietary aluminium
Pulse, March 25, 2000, Pg. 30, 176 words
6. Aluminum-Alzheimer's link is thin as tin
The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), May 18, 2002 Saturday Final Edition, Weekender; The Right Chemistry; Pg. F16, 1130 words, JOE SCHWARCZ
7. IS ALUMINIUM DANGEROUS?
The Statesman (India), May 29, 2006 Monday, 441 words
8. IS ALUMINIUM DANGEROUS?
The Statesman (India), May 29, 2006 Monday, 441 words
9. Why the great aluminium saucepan scare was rather overcooked
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH(LONDON), November 23, 2003, Sunday, 615 words, ANSWER BY ROBERT MATTHEWS
10. SENILITY NOT THE RESULT OF ALUMINIUM
Canberra Times (Australia), October 4, 1998, Sunday Edition, 664 words
11. The New York Times, April 26, 2005 Tuesday, Section F; Column 5; Health & Fitness; REALLY?; Pg. 6, 254 words, By ANAHAD O'CONNOR
12. CHOCOLATE PUDDING CAN ROT YOUR BRAIN
Scotland on Sunday, June 20, 1999, Sunday, Pg. 8, 338 words, By Jackie Kemp
13. ALZHEIMER DISEASE; Recent studies from Johns Hopkins University, Department of Environmental Health Sciences add new data to Alzheimer disease
Biotech Business Week, June 4, 2007, EXPANDED REPORTING; Pg. 719, 379 words
14. NOT FOREVER , The Boston Globe, March 20, 2005, Sunday, 242 words, PETER J. KELLY
15. Early-warning test that could combat Alzheimer's
DAILY MAIL (London), April 16, 2003, Pg. 17, 671 words, James Chapman
16. CAREFUL what you use
Housewares, November 1998, Pg. 37, 452 words
17. Alzheimer's research triggers call for new water poisoning inquiry: Camelford woman's death linked to aluminium level: Effects of incident were covered up, says husband
The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, April 20, 2006 Thursday, GUARDIAN HOME PAGES; Pg. 7, 593 words, Sarah Hall, Health correspondent
18. Q & A
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), August 26, 2004 Thursday, HEALTH & SCIENCE; Pg. 4, 528 words, Dr Linda Calabresi Dr Calabresi is a practising Sydney GP and medical editor of Medical Observer. Email your questions to linda.calabresi@medobs.com.au
19. Is soup the only thing simmering in that pot?
The Globe and Mail (Canada), March 13, 2001 Tuesday, HEALTH; LETTERS FROM ACADEMIA; Pg. R6, 1182 words
20. Fight the disease
The Advertiser, February 1, 2005 Tuesday, FEATURES; Pg. 42, 871 words, James Duigan The Naked Trainer
21. Alzheimer's linked to aluminium pollution in tap water
The Times (London), April 20, 2006, Thursday, HOME NEWS; Pg. 26, 734 words, Nigel Hawkes
22. Alzheimer's linked to aluminium pollution in tap water
The Times (London), April 20, 2006, Thursday, HOME NEWS; Pg. 26, 734 words, Nigel Hawkes
23. Tin, Aluminum, Chromium
The Washington Post, May 24, 2006 Wednesday, Food; F06 , FOOD 101 Robert L. Wolke, 953 words, Robert L. Wolke
24. Rare Alzheimer death reignites aluminium fears
The Times (London), April 20, 2006, Thursday, HOME NEWS; Pg. 31, 596 words, Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor
25. Rare Alzheimer death reignites aluminium fears
The Times (London), April 20, 2006, Thursday, HOME NEWS; Pg. 31, 596 words, Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor
There were already some refs for aluminium when talking about the role of metals. I have specifically added aluminium with references both confirming and disconforming such link and other occupational exposures in the prevention section as a risk factors. I think that now all views are fairly represented.--Garrondo (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I keep forgetting to look at this talk page. The above are fine repeats of the same urban myth over and over again, but nothing there impresses me that it's a current or newsworthy story. I'm not opposed to information about aluminum. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a myth and has been fully debunked, like anything else at WP it should be presented (and debunked, with sources), since people will come looking for such information. However, the most recent Lexis-Nexis sources include ones that still include scientists who believe the metal has a relationship to the disease. Badagnani (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Badagnani, would you mind removing all those news links? They are distracting and largely unciteable. Let's try to keep the page clean. Also, did you notice my review of the science above? I presented 6 recent scientific reviews positively inclined towards the aluminium hypothesis, and one 2001 Elsevier book. The Medline literature on aluminium/Alzheimer's largely supports the hypothesis. II | (t - c) 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit in a threatening manner. It was necessary to place the links, as an editor claimed that his/her search proved that there were no such articles in the last ten years. Badagnani (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be threatening. When you cut out the noise, it is easier to see the signal (Signal-to-noise). You've already made your point, and I feel that. But now it would be nice to trim. Look at the abstracts of the reviews that I presented instead. Try to get ahold of the full-text. The aluminium section deserves more weight in this article. II | (t - c) 03:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not mistaken when I said that an editor (who seemed very sure of him/herself) stated that no article had appeared in any media source in the last ten years that mentioned aluminum vis-a-vis Alzheimer's disease. Badagnani (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not mistaken. I said the exact opposite. You've proven him wrong ("You've already made your point"), and now it would be nice to trim. Check out RESOURCE if you want to get a hold of the full-text for some of those reviews. PMID 18392545 is free access. II | (t - c) 04:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the scientific reviews for Aluminium and Alzheimer's
Moving this down here since it seems to fit better.
Garrondo, you gave me the wrong PMID. PMID 17522444 (2007 -- this is the one you gave me) has this to say on the issue:
Although the initiating molecular events are not entirely known, in recent years it has become evident that environmental and/or nutritional factors may play a causal, disruptive, and/or protective role in the development of AD. While a direct causal role for aluminum or other transition metals (copper, zinc, iron) in AD has not yet been definitively demonstrated, epidemiological evidence suggests that elevated levels of these metals in the brain may be linked to the development or progression of AD. This review summarizes studies which implicate a role for several metals in contributing to or causing AD.
PMID 18392545 (2008), a systematic review of this particular issue, says this:
A systematic literature review was carried out in two databases, MEDLINE and LILACS, between 1990 and 2005, using the uniterms: "Aluminum exposure and Alzheimer Disease" and "Aluminum and risk for Alzheimer Disease". After application of the Relevance Test, 34 studies were selected, among which 68% established a relation between Al and AD, 23.5% were inconclusive and 8.5% did not establish a relation between Al and AD. Results showed that Al is associated to several neurophysiologic processes that are responsible for the characteristic degeneration of AD. In spite of existing polemics all over the world about the role of Al as a risk factor for AD, in recent years, scientific evidence has demonstrated that Al is associated with the development of AD.
It's not the most prestigious work, but along with the above review, there is obviously something going on which deserves a fair bit of attention. Perhaps you meant to point me to PMID 17525096, which reviews 3 epidemiological studies and finds no relationship -- strangely, it doesn't include the 2000 epidemiological study referenced in this article. A 2001 book from Elsevier concludes that "we are far away from discounting the possibility that aluminium is a contributory factor in the aetiology of Alzheimer's disease." PMID 17119283 (2006), PMID 17119287 (2006), PMID 15666086 (2005), which PubMed count as reviews, also make the case for Al as a factor. I'm not just selecting either; click Related links on any of these, click Reviews, then sort by Pub date. These are the ones that come up.
OM: I'm not really a "nice" or a "non-nice" person on Wikipedia -- but I'm certainly not trying to be mean. I'm here to promote good information. I'll admit that I'm disappointed that there's plenty of bad science flying around, and that it's clear that many people aren't really doing much research, just repeating things they've heard. I also don't think a Featured Article should present a biased view of the science. You say that proving a negative is difficult -- that's not true, especially when the supposed negative is actually a positive of "show me that scientists don't really think aluminium is really connected to Alzheimer's". ImpIn | (t - c) 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compare:
Cuajungco MP, Frederickson CJ, Bush AI (2005). "Amyloid-beta metal interaction and metal chelation". Subcell Biochem. 38: 235–254. PMID15709482.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Exley C (2005). "The aluminium-amyloid cascade hypothesis and Alzheimer's disease". Subcell Biochem. 38: 225–234. PMID15709481.
and
Rodella LF, Ricci F, Borsani E, Stacchiotti A, Foglio E, Favero G, Rezzani R, Mariani C, Bianchi R (2008). "Aluminium exposure induces Alzheimer's disease-like histopathological alterations in mouse brain". Histol Histopathol. 23 (4): 433–439. PMID18228200. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Drawing comparing a normal brain and a brain of a person with AD. AD produces atrophy in the brain: the cortex is thinner, white matter volume is reduced, ventricles and sulci are widened and the hippocampus is much more smaller.
This was the comment for the image of a revisor in the FAC proccess:
Image:Alzheimer's disease - MRI.jpg - the policy pages referenced in {{PD-USGov-NASA}} address only information hosted on JSC (Johnson Space Center) and JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) websites. This image is from a GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) website (I didn't see an equivalent policy for this prefix). The notice page for this tutorial explicitly indicates that some images are not in the public domain. The tutorial does not appear to claim to be a work of NASA; indeed, the forward introduces the primary author as "a former NASA Goddard employee" (emphasis added). Where is the basis for the claim that this image was created by NASA? Why would the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be creating images pertaining to Alzheimer's?
The truth is that there is hardly any way of knowing if this image is under public domain, and most probably it is not. I have searched other government pages to see if the picture appears and there is non, and right now even the tutorial where it was taken from has closed. It's a pity but I feel that the honest thing to do is to eliminate the picture from the article and probably from WP commons.
It is not by far as good as an MRI image but I have created a drawing comparing an AD brain and a normal brain. It is a beta version, and as I have created it with layers modifications could be easily be made. I hope people say what they think about it (Of course if anybody has an MRI image it would be most welcomed).
I liked the picture, but I'm concerned that policy around here is in lieu of explicit permission, we have to assume there is none. We could try to get someone familiar with images involved.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the MRI image metadata on the commons page to show the primary author and a current URL for the tutorial. He clearly thought the image was suitable for inclusion in a non-copyright NASA educational publication, the reasonable man would conclude that it is barring some counter-evidence. I'm comfortable with using it, but if someone wants to email Dr Short about it, that should remove all doubt. His address is in the metadata. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that even the tutorial is non-copyrighted? Even if it was, it may apply only to text, while images might be copyrighted. I really like the image, but we must be sure of the source. If it is not clearly stated that it is not copyrighted there might be a problem.--Garrondo (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also written to the goddard space center (creator of the tutorial where the image appeared) and the NASA office for copyrights issues... I don't think they would answer but nobody knows... :-) --Garrondo (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not put the image exatcly where the MRI image is right now but in the diagnosis section since is where we talk about PET scan. In the neuropathology section I would put the diagram comparing the brain of a person with and without the disease from the same source. Finally just to be a little critic: I do not know much about PET, but I believe that to be able to compare the energy gradients of two images they have to be exactly in the same scale, and since the darkest point in both images is not the same colour I doubt they are in the same scale so it is not really fair to compare them (Even in the worsest state of AD there would not be such functional differences. Maybe it would be better to simply put the AD image and say that a temporal hipofunctionality is a characteristic of the disease which can be seen in the image.--Garrondo (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The survival time after diagnosis is approximately 6 years
Is this a mean or a median figure? Presumably that information can be found in one of the seven citations given for it, but it should be in the article. --75.63.50.206 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed very much in a year and the direction has always been FA. Two months ago it was presented as FAC. It was probably too early since a few sections had not been really revised. The FAC served its pourpouse since we had guides on what to improve. In these two months 3 sections have been fully rewritten, and most of the others improved. I believe content is good enough right now to pass the FA proccess, however there are a few issues that should be solved before the proccess begins. I think they are mainly three, but if anybody believes there are any others just say them.
Prognosis
I'll try to revise this section, since it is the smallest one of the article.
Lead
The lead should be a summary of the content of the article. Therefore I believe it should most likely follow the same order than the article give the same weight to article views and have same references. The lead of the AD article has evolved quite separated from the article, and there are importante differences between both of them. Could anybody with a good English take a look at it and rewritte some of it?
Citing style
Quite a lot of months ago this was alredy discussed. Consensus was reached to writte references vertically and using Diberris tool. Some sections and references do not use this style. Most importantly, I really do not like to put several references inside the same number since it is easy to repeat references without knowing it. Consensus has to be reached on whether to use such style and when (How many consecutive references are needed to combine them inside a single number?). Consensus should also be reached on which parameters from Diberris tool are the ones to be used in the references of the article.
We have almost 300 references in the article. It is really hard to follow them and very easy to repeat them or delete one... My proposal would be to use the full reference with the name parameter every time a reference is used. I know this increases the weight of the article, but it eases citing or deleting refences since you do not need to see if the ref is already used when including a new reference or if it is used in other sentences when deleting a reference. Anyway, if it is decided to only put the full reference the first time it is used there are many references (Probably most of them added by me) used several times with the full ref data.
Is there some reason for providing "convenience" urls to linkinghub etc where the citations already have a permalink (pmid, pmcid, doi, etc)?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For cite journal, the DOI bot will check for and pare away redundant url and accessdate. The url is not needed where there is a correct pmid, pmcid, or doi provided. Accessdate is not needed for journals at all-they don't change. Every cite must have a title. Date, Journal, Volume, Issue, Pages are all good but not urgent to have. Author should normally list the first three authors and et al. where there are more than four. If a full date isn't available, using Year and Month fields is the alternative. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cleaning up the references. The DOI bot is not very efficient. I've tried it, and it gets some stuff and not others, using some database that frequently adds URL's to journal locations that require paid logins. I've been removing them. I set up a macro on my computer to clean them up, which I've been doing. Almost done. So that the style is consistent, please let me finish (which i should do today). Thanks. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions14:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use diberri's template for citations, and I notice that it pulls from a database that has url's on occasion. I don't think it's a bug, it's just that the database is a bit whacked. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←I think it's close, but I think there are some style and grammar issues that need to be cleaned up. This is what I've seen in successful FAC's. To make the style clean and readable, one person should take the lead to clean it up. I can do that if I can have a couple of days without distraction. Also, we do have to clean up the citations per LDS' comments above. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Have you been busy or what? Great job! I noted a couple of implicit choices you made (somebody had to choose...) to use the short form journal names and page ranges as per pubmed. I really hate to quibble over this, but for a lay reader this can be rather confusing. I suppose I should raise the subject at MEDMOS talk. If the journal name were linked it might be more palatable, but as it is some are incomprehensible until you follow the permalink. Also noted that the short names were inconsistent about use of periods in the abbreviated words. I assume that's just what the tools did.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with outdated references in Prognosis section and a weak Prevention section
Based on my cursory glance over the references, there seems to be a reliance upon outdated primary articles when it comes to survival/prognosis. Ref 5., a 1986 primary article, is cited 5 times; it does not appear all that major, either. Ref 6., another primary article (1995) by the same author. Seems worth it to attempt to replace with up-to-date reviews, preferably freely accessible ones? Maybe I'm wrong; it is possible that those studies are the best, and that they were fairly conclusive on the causes of death/survival among Alzheimer patients. This plays into the prognosis section which you're thinking about revising. Also, it would be interesting to highlight seminal papers, although that might violate summary style. I also get the feeling that at least some of these references are superflous, and the best one should be chosen. A good review can cover a lot of information. "Best" can be decided by looking at how up-to-date the article is, how many citations it has, and how available it is (number of libraries with it, PMC availability, ect).
The article itself seems very well-written. It is hard for a layman to understand, but that's inevitable. The weakest section is, unfortunately, probably the most important section for the lay readers which Wikipedia attracts: prevention. I just read the first review referenced there to Alzheimer's/aluminium. It seems pretty good. The end of the prevention section presents a barrage of references which do not really support the "other studies have not confirmed this link" statement, especially because the two sentences bunch together EMF, solvents, and metals. That section needs work before this becomes a Featured Article. I've posted a review of scientific articles relating aluminium to Alzheimer's above on the talk section, which is widely considered to be the most closely related environmental contaminant. Disaggregating these different contaminants would be the first step. II | (t - c) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your points on the prognosis section deserve response (I'm still a holdout on discussing aluminum, because I have seen nothing that gives a biochemical reason for it inducing plaques or tangles, but I'll admit to not knowing everything about aluminum in neurons). The two articles mentioned are truly the best for the prognosis of the disease. I used Pubmed's highly effective references that use references system. One of the more modern articles Larson EB, Shadlen MF, Wang L; et al. (2004). "Survival after initial diagnosis of Alzheimer disease". Ann. Intern. Med. 140 (7): 501–9. PMID15068977. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) uses a Seattle base population (talk about self-selecting--maybe too much coffee), and its results aren't significantly different than the articles mentioned. Sometimes there are just important studies that stand the test of time. BTW, I don't think PMC availability is a useful indicator of the importance of articles. It may have much more to do with arcane intellectual property ideals of various journals. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back to aluminum. The reason I don't buy into aluminum as a causal agent for AD is A) Post hoc ergo procter hoc, which weakens any argument, and B) I've yet to read a proposed mechanism. I'd need convincing to put anything more about aluminum in this article. And, I do not work for ALCOA. In case you're wondering. LOL. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right about the prognosis section; it looks like most of the major articles are mentioned on this page, and the most recent review was in 2000. PMC availability is not an indicator of the importance of the article, it is an indicator of the availability to the reader only, which should be considered. I've actually noticed that this article will sometimes put up a real strong review followed by an older primary article available at PMC, which is appreciated. As far as the mechanism: since studies have found that aluminium is present in much higher concentrations in the brains of AD patients, that entirely presupposes a mechanism. The question is not whether there is a mechanism, then, but the consistency of these findings, because if these findings are consistent, then the mechanism question is moot. Sorry, misread what you meant by induce. Yes, how the aluminium translates into brain damage is a question, but plenty of research has gone into the mechanism. The 2007 Journal of Alzheimer's Diseasearticle discusses mechanisms and epidemiological findings, and it concludes that "metals, particularly aluminium, are clearly involved, but it is unclear whether they play a minor or a major role in the etiology of the disease". If you don't have it available I can email it to you. II | (t - c) 00:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are reviews which conclude there is a relationship and others which conclude the opposite so I believe we maintain a neutral point of view as both views are shown and the same weight is given to both of them. Maybe in the future the role of Aluminium is more clear but for the moment there is no scientific consensus on its function and the only thing clear is that it has appeared related in some epidemiological articles. I do not believe the link needs to be more in depht covered in the main article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giving both sides equal weight because "there is a dispute" seems like rather poor reasoning. A 2007 review by Carpenter in a highly specialized journal says there is clearly a relationship. The papers cited which "dispute this claim" have some problems. The most recent 2007 one takes a scattershot approach and looks at all hypothesized risk factors. Because its approach is so wide, it looked at only 3 aluminium epidemiological studies. It apparently selectively picked out ones which were negative. The 2007 J. Alzheimer's Dis. lists 20 aluminium epidemiological studies in table 1, page 4. Of those 20, 15 are positive. The rest of the studies used against the aluminium link are primary/outdated. Clearly some sloppy work in this section, and it casts some doubt on the other sections, unfortunately. Understandably, it is impossible to read all these papers, but the error here could have been gathered from looking at the most relevant paper (2007 focused review) rather than trying to use outdated/primary studies to contradict it. In addition, the 2007 review discusses the mechanisms, so the information is out there if OrangeMarlin feels like exploring past mistaken conventional wisdom. My proposal is that we cut some of the primary studies. The Santibanez paper appears, prima facie, to be strikingly biased, selectively picking 3/20 studies and managing to pick the 3/5 negative ones. It could maybe be used for inconsistency in other risk factors, but the bias makes it a suspicious source IMO. If someone could send it over I would appreciate it; it would be interesting to see how they justify their selection. II | (t - c) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well: if there is a dispute between primary sources and no scientific consensus in a matter, wikipedia should only state such debate since reaching a conclussion or giving more weight to a view would be original research. I don't feel that a single recent review means there is scientific consensus. On the other hand most articles on prevention, and not specifically centred in aluminium state that there are not enough facts to clearly propose preventive measures.--Garrondo (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back to Post hoc ergo procter hoc. Just because it's there, I'm not sure there is a cause. By the way, undue weight doesn't quite work the way as described above. Remember, science rarely tries to prove a negative, hence all the alternative medicine crap out there where someone will say, hey there are no references that dispute it. I think most researchers dispute any relationship, precisely because no one has elucidated a mechanism of action, which means it's ultimately not falsifiable. Aluminum is not quite a fringe theory, but it is nearly so. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, Occam leads us to hold that the association indicates causality, albeit not what the cause is. If both the metal and the plaques are present because of a mutual causative process, I haven't seen any suggestions what that common cause might be. If the plaques are causing the metal to concentrate that too would need a mechanism. Hence I continue to hold that we just don't know why they're associated. Time will tell but the article needn't wait on it. We should outright say that they're correlated but we don't know why.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm not totally dismissive as I might be if someone was pushing "Vitamin C prevents AD". There is enough research to make it seem like there is a link, but not quite enough to say it's verified. It's moved from fringe theory to almost interesting. I'm on the fence, but I don't want to give much weight to it. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review of Causes section
I just copyedited (or at least tried to do so) this section. And I'm still confused. The first paragraph says that there are three hypotheses. Yet it reads like there are four, but then the last hypothesis seems to be a slight revision to #3. I'm confused. Can someone clarify or rewrite. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And one more issue: there doesn't appear to be any information about what might cause these things to happen. Down's syndrome and a genetic anomaly seem to be it. Which negates writing anything in prevention except maybe, "hey you're either going to get this or not, it's a matter of genes." is that true? Because that's what I would conclude from reading the section. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following. Did you look at the genetics section? Certain genes will strongly predispose you to AD, but if you don't have those, it seems less genetically determined. II | (t - c) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We might have a lack of knowledge to review this section and the pathophisiology section (I am sure I have). It is very specific and an important amount of biochemistry is needed. Could it be a good idea to ask at project medicine for some help?--Garrondo (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably even better to try to go outside of Wikipedia and try to tap one of the real experts.
I have written to one of the Alzheimer's genetics specialist of the research center I work at. I have asked him if he will consider reviewing the causes and pathophisiology sections. I do not have a strong relationship with him so he may or may not help us. Does anybody know if his name can appear in something like an aknowledgements box or something like that if he does an external review? I seem to remember to have seen it in some other page, but I am not sure. As soon as he answers I will communicate it. --Garrondo (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has decided not to review the article since he does not have time.I could maybe ask some of his doctorate biologists but I suppose they will have similar problems and secondly most of them are right now on holidays. A pity. Any ideas? --Garrondo (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the July 2008 results, we need to ask if the beta-amyloid hypothesis is still tenable. First the 19 July Lancet autopsy results on the AN-1792 recipients showed clearing the AB didn't affect the dementia, then the Chicago ICAD methylene blue results showed attacking the tau did. It seems at least to some that the question is pretty much decided.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, we should make a statement that it is pretty much decided. But we have to keep in the prior hypotheses, just in case someone is reading this article and says, "hey what about AB." Eventually, if the tau hypothesis becomes the consensus, we reduce the other two hypotheses to mentions per WP:WEIGHT. Remember, in science, it takes repeatability of results to make good science, and I don't think we're quite there yet. The methylene blue results are preliminary, and pharmaceutical companies can make things appear more than they are. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I wanted to remark the hard-wonderful job of OrangeMarlin and LeadSongDog. The article would not be nearly as good without all your editions...
I also wanted to propose an image change. The lead image is anything but friendly, and would not encourage anybody to read the article except pathologists, which are not very common. I think a possible solution is to put the image of the comparison between the two brains as the lead image and put the pathology one in the place left by the first. Texts fit perfectly so nothing would have to be rewritten and I feel the image of the brains is much more attractive. --Garrondo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the first paragraph a bit. Two changes affect the meaning and I want to check with you guys:
I've added "often" to the "terminal disease" bit as later the text says AD is "the underlying cause" for 70% of deaths. I'm not sure if this means that some folk can have AD for a very long time (and so die of an unrelated illness -- they lived with AD rather than dying of it) or merely that AD will kill you unless something else gets there first. Any thoughts?
I've removed the "although estimates vary greatly" from the lead. The discussion of estimate quality is probably best left out of the lead and if this is our best guess then let's just present as such. Also, the citation for that clause didn't support it as it only had figures up to 2030 rather than 2050.
I agree with the second change, but not with the first: from my point of view it is always terminal, which has nothing to do with the fact that for example an old person can die of a heart attack or a car accident before AD kills him. I change it again--Garrondo (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on folks, just going through - these longer articles are a real pain in the neck if issues crop up and the FAC page becomes a morass of text...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the physician or healthcare specialist.. - do we need 'healthcare specialist' here? Aren't internal medicine specialists and geriatricians physicians?
The disease course is divided into four stages, with a progressive pattern of cognitive and functional impairment expressed from one stage to the next and during each stage. -erm, this sentence has 3 'stages' in it...may wanna try and mix it up a little...
I simply eliminated the second part of the sentence leaving it as: The disease course is divided into four stages, with a progressive pattern of cognitive and functional impairment.
noncritical - I have never heard this word used in a medical context, and never seen it non-hyphenated (or is that nonhyphenated) either. Could probably replace with normal aging or somesuch.
*Any particular reason under Characteristics section why Advanced doesn't have 'dementia' after it like the others?
Added dementia for the advanced section
PS:Any edits you think I screwed up in by losing meaning or just ugliness of prose, please revert
..and the tangles are located in areas of the brain that cause deterioration of mental function - areas of the brain which cause this??
I have said which area is where Ad patients have more tangles and eliminated the part of the sentence of the cause of deteriorioration of mental function (Almost any brain damage supposes deterioration of mental function).
Early onset Alzheimer's
I think the Intro is misleading in the second line. It used to mention the "early-onset form" of AD, but now just mentions Familial Alzheimer disease (in the line "although a less prevalent inherited form strikes earlier") as the 'other form' of AD. But are they strictly the same thing? I can't find any proof that 'early onset' AD is always genetically inherited. Surely we need to mention 'early onset' AD? I'll re-include the term, and will make an article for it too - I'll retain the link in the Intro it to Familial AD (as it was 'piped' before) until it's done.
This line has proved hard to write as we simply can't say how many 'forms' of AD there are. A way around this is to use the word "Alzheimer's" instead of 'form'. I'm trying this:
"Initial onset typically occurs in people over 65 years of age, although the less-prevalent early-onset Alzheimer's can occur much earlier".
I'm a bit worried about the finalisation of the FA process being a bit of a train - we need to get matters like this right, rather than 'edit around' them, which I suspect may have happened here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your rewrite is fine. As for the "train", I'm not sure you should be too worried about it. The FA process seems to be thorough (as opposed to years ago--I read some FA articles that are just plain bad). I agree with not editing around concerns. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with words like "commonly" is that they seems to allude the prevalence of the disease across society, rather than over age. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over 3 or 4 articles (I used one to reference the statement), and Alzheimer's appears to almost never happen before 65. The article from Brookmeyer, seems to indicate it's less than 0.05%. I guess in a population of 5 million over that age, that's still a big number. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there's really no good articles that make a definitive statement about when it does occur. The 65 number is used because I think the epidemiological studies indicate that it becomes a significant (though very small) number at that point. One day, when we know what actually predisposes someone to Alzheimer's, we can determine the exact onset age. Also, I think there's a delay in diagnosis, which may make the date later than usual.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I intitally created the article and introduction, then was 'bold' and merged in the text from Familial Alzheimer's disease below the intro (FAD accounts for about half of early onset AD). It's easy to delete the text I've inserted, and I haven't 'redirected' the FAD article to the new article yet. I've asked for comments in Talk:Early-onset Alzheimer's disease. If it is OK, we can link the second line in the Introduction straight to Early-onset, instead of pipe-linking it to FAD, which is only half the story. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US/UK English
This article is predominantly US English and has been since the start. Despite my personal preference for UK spelling, I attempted to fix the few non-US spellings in this edit according to WP:ENGVAR. Adherence to guidelines is part of the FA criteria. This was undone by Matt Lewis (talk·contribs). I queried this with Matt but we're at a stalemate. All I desire is consistency within the article; the choice of US or UK English is up to the major contributors IMO. Could someone else decide either way. Thanks, Colin°Talk21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the "has been from the start" in response on my talk.. I think the US-lead appraisal is unnecessarily unfair (as it goes..). And AD is not area specific (or not in 'the West' at least - hard to say elsewhere). If FA's demand one type only, how about International English? The American editors have been more than amenable so far. It's not all about Ronald Reagan - its about AD. It's a bugger for us all. I'm happy with both (I don't even notice the variation), but it looks like we must make a choice...--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care which one to use (I don't even know the difference between both of them), but WP policies say that one should be chosen.--Garrondo (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer UK English, because it is used by more English speaking countries and in countries (such as India) where English is the second language. I am comfortable with both, but I suggest we use the UK version. Bugger is a bit difficult to understand. LOL. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks we have consensus leaning towards UK English. It would be my pleasure to make the change to consistent UK spelling. I'll have a go later, unless anyone shouts in the meantime. Colin°Talk15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text days "SPECT and PET neuroimaging are used to diagnose Alzheimer's in conjunction with methods involving mental status examination." Earlier it said "Alzheimer's disease is usually diagnosed clinically". This paragraph may give the (contradictory) impression that such scans are routine, which I suspect they are not. Can someone clarify the text (insert the word "occasionally", or say "under research for the diagnosis", etc) or whatever is appropriate. What may be available for rich patients in the top US teaching hospitals isn't necessarily so elsewhere. Colin°Talk12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that SPECT and PET are used for confirmatory diagnosis, but the initial diagnosis does not require it. Let me reread and add some appropriate words. I'm not sure what happened, but this came up in the first FAC, and we added some language about availability of procedures. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least in Spain they are very rarely used in public health (which comprises 99 per cent of medical care). Only in private hospitals as the hospital I work at it is clinically used routinously. It is probably the same over the world: A pet is expensive but a spect is VERY expensive.--Garrondo (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here in America, I think it's more common than elsewhere, but not a standard medical tool. I would say that most major medical centers have one. And of course, there are independent for-profit institutions that have them.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kraepelin
Text mentions 8th edition, ISBN is broken. I only find seventh. I suspect that the content is in volume 4: Dementia praecox and paraphrenia but someone should verify this.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right: I copy the following text from an article (PMID 9447568):
Secondly, a new nosological entity relevant to and accepted by clinical practitioners can only be developed in relation to a diagnostic and therapeutic system. This step was taken by Emil Kraepelin in the 8th edition of his famous textbook published in 1909. He, but not Aloys Alzheimer, really created Alzheimer's disease. In the 7th chapter of the 2nd volume on senile and presenile psychiatric disorders Kraepetin mentions Alzheimer at least three times and then goes on to define an "Alzheimer's disease" that is characterized by a severe dementia, beginning at about the age of 50 with its typical neuropathological alterations, especially tangles of fibrils, but without signs of cerebral arteriosclerosis. Then Kraepelin discussed the clinical and nosological meaning of Alzheimer's disease:
... The clinical interpretation of this Alzheimer's disease is still confused. While the anatomic findings suggest that we are dealing with a particularly serious fon~a of senile dementia, the fact that this disease sometimes starts already around the age of 50 does not allow this supposition. In such cases we should at least assume a "senium praecox'" if not perhaps a more or less age-independent unique disease process...(Kraepelin, 1909, p. 627)
The citation for his 1909 book is: Kraepelin, E. (1909). Psychiatric. Ein Lehrbuch far Studierende und °rzte. 8. Auft., Band II/l. Leipzig: Barth. (Engl. trans. (1987): Senile and pre-senile dementias). In K. L. Bick, L. Amaducci & G. Pepeu (Eds) The Early Story of Alzheimer's Disease (pp. 32-81). Padova: Liviana Editrice].
I do not have time right now to look for the isbn and correct citation but I will do it tomorrow or at last on monday if nobody does it before.
I'm a bit confused. The isbn # works, and I can even buy the reprint on Amazon.com. I'm not sure if there's any reason to use the original reference, since it might be difficult to find. Since the reprint is exactly the same, and is available to find at a library or for purchase, that's the reference we should use. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question comes down to which edition introduced the pioneering content. It's a rather fine point, but if we're putting it in, we should try to get it right.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that the isbn works on A9 and on Google Shopping, but not WorldCat, Ottobib, or Google Books. Very strange. Presumably the reprint of 2007 just hasn't percolated through the indices yet, but it may be the book hasn't actually been reprinted pending sufficient orders.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
