Knowledge‐driven computational modeling in Alzheimer's disease research: Current state and future trends
Abstract
Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) follow a slowly progressing dysfunctional trajectory, with a large presymptomatic component and many comorbidities. Using preclinical models and large‐scale omics studies ranging from genetics to imaging, a large number of processes that might be involved in AD pathology at different stages and levels have been identified. The sheer number of putative hypotheses makes it almost impossible to estimate their contribution to the clinical outcome and to develop a comprehensive view on the pathological processes driving the clinical phenotype. Traditionally, bioinformatics approaches have provided correlations and associations between processes and phenotypes. Focusing on causality, a new breed of advanced and more quantitative modeling approaches that use formalized domain expertise offer new opportunities to integrate these different modalities and outline possible paths toward new therapeutic interventions. This article reviews three different computational approaches and their possible complementarities. Process algebras, implemented using declarative programming languages such as Maude, facilitate simulation and analysis of complicated biological processes on a comprehensive but coarse‐grained level. A model‐driven Integration of Data and Knowledge, based on the OpenBEL platform and using reverse causative reasoning and network jump analysis, can generate mechanistic knowledge and a new, mechanism‐based taxonomy of disease. Finally, Quantitative Systems Pharmacology is based on formalized implementation of domain expertise in a more fine‐grained, mechanism‐driven, quantitative, and predictive humanized computer model. We propose a strategy to combine the strengths of these individual approaches for developing powerful modeling methodologies that can provide actionable knowledge for rational development of preventive and therapeutic interventions. Development of these computational approaches is likely to be required for further progress in understanding and treating AD.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Computational modeling and graph-theoretical approaches can be applied to large-scale multimodal datasets to identify subnetworks of dysregulation that vary between individuals.
“Computational modeling and graph-theoretical approaches can be applied to these datasets to identify subnetworks of dysregulation that vary between individuals [176, 177].”
From Toward a Unified Framework in Molecular Neurobiology of Alzheimer’s Disease: Revisiting the Pathophysiological Hypotheses (2026) · cites this paper as [177]
Cites
Subramanian, A., Tamayo, P., Mootha, V. K., Mukherjee, S., Ebert, B. L., Gillette, M. A., Paulovich, A., Pomeroy, S. L., Golub, T. R., Lander, E. S., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0506580102 · Cited by 53,625 · see citing works
The Cellular Phase of Alzheimer’s Disease
De Strooper, B., & Karran, E. (2016) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.056 · Cited by 1,990 · see citing works
The case for rejecting the amyloid cascade hypothesis
Herrup, K. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4017 · Cited by 768 · see citing works
AlzBase: An Integrative Database for Gene Dysregulation in Alzheimer’s Disease
Bai, Z., Han, G., Xie, B., Wang, J., Song, F., Peng, X., & Lei, H. (2016) · Molecular Neurobiology · doi:10.1007/s12035-014-9011-3 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hein, Z. M., Karikalan, B., Gopalakrishna, P. K., Dhevi, K., Alkatiri, A., Hussan, F., Mohd Moklas, M. A., Jagadeesan, S., Che Ramli, M. D., Che Mohd Nassir, C. M. N., et al. (2026) · Molecular Neurobiology · doi:10.1007/s12035-025-05602-0 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Huang, Y., Zhang, H., Ma, B., Yu, Z., Dai, S., Cheng, L., Su, L., Yang, G., & Ma, Q. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.121754 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Geerts, H., Hofmann‐Apitius, M., Anastasio, T. J., & Initiative, B. H. M.
- Affiliations
- In Silico Biosciences (United States) (US)
- Fraunhofer Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (DE)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Corresponding author
- Geerts, Hugo
- Venue
- Alzheimer's & Dementia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-09-14
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1292-1302
- ISSN
- 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5279
- OpenAlex
- W2767318646
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's disease, computational modeling
- MeSH terms
- Alzheimer Disease, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Biological, Computational Biology, Knowledge, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review