{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04135079255685734, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04686423156443832, 'mean_word_length': 5.23175965665236, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The amyloid cascade hypothesis: are we poised for success or failure?

The first description of Alzheimer's disease (AD) was made in 1907 by Alois Alzheimer (Allgemeine Zeitschrift fur Psyciatrie und Psychisch‐Gerichtliche Medizin 64, 3, 1907), although other contemporary physicians had made similar, and rather more complete, assessments of the neuropathological changes present in the AD brain (Fischer, Monatsschr Psychiat Neurol 22, 17, 1907). Our knowledge of AD has increased dramatically and continues to accelerate. This year is 25 years after the publication of a series of papers that, in various ways, articulated the amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH) for AD (Beyreuther and Masters, Brain Pathol 1, 241–251, 1991; Hardy and Allsop, Trends Pharmacol Sci 12, 383–388, 1991; Selkoe, Neuron 6, 487–498, 1991; Hardy and Higgins, Science 256, 184–185, 1992). This review will cover some familiar territory, but we shall also place the ACH into a wider context, compare it with other hypotheses for AD, explore the evolution of the hypothesis to encompass new findings, and determine, irrespective of the merits of the hypothesis itself, whether it has been useful for the research field, both in academia and in industry. Finally, we shall review how the ACH has led to a number of therapeutic approaches, all of which have, to date, failed to reach their primary efficacy end‐points in clinical trials and reflect upon what the future may hold.