Talk:Alzheimer's disease

Correlation to (particularly midlife) diabetes

See PMID 18952836 18952836 for details.

Good summary article from New England Journal of Medicine (2004)

• Cummings JL (2004 Jul). "Alzheimer's Disease". N Engl J Med. 351 (1): 56–67. PMID 15229308. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Huzerpine A

Under 'Management' the following is said about Huzerpine A, based on a Cochrane systematic review: Patients with Alzheimer’s disease who have taken Huperzine A have improved general cognitive function, global clinical status, functional performance and reduced behavioural disturbance compared to patients taking placebos, according to a Cochrane Review.[166]

I think this is overstating the conclusions of the review: perhaps change to: ... Huzerpine A may have improved..... and perhaps add: ... though the review highlighted the poor methodological quality of the small trials of huzerpine A, including problems with randomisation and blinding. Dhj davis (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Following on from above: Hi Orangemarlin, I'm new, so am cautiously making new edits. I'd be grateful for the clarification. W.r.t. the edit on Huzerpine A, I didn't change the reference citation to the Cochrane -- I just edited the comment so that it reflected the concerns highlighted by the review (methodological biases etc). I felt that the article (as things stand) overstated the findings of the review. I see now that my edit might have appeared to be unsupported, but of course I'm referring to the review cited in the previous sentence. Perhaps I should cite the review again (at the end of both sentences)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhj davis (talk • contribs) 11:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I tidied it up. Normally where an entire para uses one ref we simply put the ref tag at the end of the para. I added a one-line quote from the plain-language summary in the Cochrane review. Cheers,LeadSongDog come howl! 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Prevalence of familial forms? Contradiction with other article

The article claims "around 0.1% of the cases are familial forms of autosomal-dominant inheritance" yet the article early-onset Alzheimer's disease says "[early-onset AD] is an uncommon form of Alzheimer's, accounting for only 5-10% of all Alzheimer's sufferers. Approximately half the cases of early-onset Alzheimer's are Familial Alzheimer's disease" and later "[early-onset familial AD] is inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion". I don't see a way to reconcile the numbers; they appear to differ by a factor of at least 25. AxelBoldt (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Senile Dementia

Hello. I am new to wikipedia but as a dementia historian feel as though I am capable of editing the history section of this page. Please could someone unlock it for me. Also I think there should be a page for 'senile dementia' and 'senility' and was wondering if somoeone could set these up, then I can edit the history sectionAnnatatton (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

I really think this needs its own page. For almost two centuries this was what dementia among older people was known as, to not acknowledge this and to mistakenly assume that just because Alzheimer's Disease was named in 1907 meant that that's what the disease was called then is an error. Please Wikipedia put senile dementia in your encyclopaedia, and while you're at it, please put senility in too. 78.105.115.109 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on senile dementia (which is a state caused by many different diseases). Could you maybe try searching the encyclopedia before complaining? SBHarris 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, a bit bitey? Anyhow, senile dementia is a redirect to dementia, as is Senile Dementia. Shouldn't we have a non-senile dementia article (and/or section) addressing causes unrelated to age? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, it's a redirect. So? The article dementia IS the article on senile dementia as well. It's a general article on dementia, both on those types where age is a risk factor and those where it isn't. But since the two are so difficult to separate, if we have two articles on the many causes of dementia, one for those where age plays a role and one where it doesn't not, somebody would be suggesting that they be merged. Dementia is a syndrome, after all, not a disease. Would we have two articles on senile and non-senile arthritis? No, it's too general a topic to break down like that. SBHarris 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, a section within dementia, then, to address CTE, rabies, and other collected causes, distinct from Alzheimer's, Lewy body, vascular etc? I'm thinking we should essentially reflect the ICD-10 breakdown (not that I've yet checked it). LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, F00-F03 would apply, though ICD-10 doesn't use the adjective "senile". We're essentially talking about the F02 and to a lesser extent the F03 sections. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding editing the article, you will be able to do so without any special help as soon as you have made a total of 10 edits of any sort -- currently you have only made two. Perhaps you could use those edits to discuss here the sorts of changes you would like to make. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC) To all responses: Yes I definitely think SBHarris has been 'bitey' towards me and it's not something I take kindly to and makes me more determined to contribute and alter your frankly dogmatic views SBHarris. Because I am a dementia historian, specifically dementia among older people this is a major issue for me. Alzheimer and Krapelin made a fundamental, major error in naming Alzheimer's disease in 1907 as a presenile dementia when it wasn't and this took back geriatric and psychiatry medicine about seventy years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annatatton (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

== References == sorry that was me Annatatton (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Please keep this section at the end of the talk page.