Here are my thoughts on this study: In the context of Alzheimer’s treatment, it is probably premature to say that dietetic increases Omega 3’s and the vitamins noted would be therapeutic. It will necessary to examine Bowman’s findings from different vantage points, including animal studies allowing for autopsy examination of brains with induced Alzheimers. However, the approach is exciting as it examines the bodies own blood borne biomarkers in connection with MRI studies, which are repeatable on a larger scale. Given the tremendous burden of Alzheimer’s, this  should be done as soon as possible. One could envision the creation of an open source data base of measured bloods and tissue samples from early Alzheimer’s patients and cross correlation with neuropsych evaluations; mental status tests and a more sensitive tweaking of the blood saturations of different nutrients and the effects on the human Alzheimer’s burdened brains. In addition, there may be subsidiary benefits towards understanding the prevention of other chronic illnesses derived from such guided data mining.  It would not be difficult to get such an inexpensive project up and running if there was an expressed interest. In addition, relatively new drugs such as memantine and other developing treatments may find pronounced benefits from specific nutrients if those nutrients can be sustained in the blood stream and adequately delivered to the brain tissues. A recent finding in the treatment of multiple sclerosis through a clearing of the carotid arteries for enhanced circulation might be valuable in context. There is a need for the confluence of neurology, nutrition, hematology, endocrinology and pathology. Can delivery of the nutrients to the brain be sustained and enhanced in order to saturate the neurons and synapses so affected by Alzheimer’s?

“Developing this new network and the associated classification system will require a long-term perspective and parallels the challenges of building Europe’s great cathedrals — one generation will start building them, but they will ultimately be completed by another, with plans changing over time,” said committee co-chair Charles Sawyers, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and the inaugural director of the Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “Dramatic advances in biology and technology have enabled rapid, comprehensive, and cost-efficient analysis of patients’ health information, which has resulted in an explosion of data that could dramatically alter disease classification. Health care costs have also steadily increased without translating into significantly improved clinical outcomes. These circumstances make it a perfect time to modernize disease classification.”

Typically, disease taxonomy refers to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), a system established more than 100 years ago that is used to track and diagnose disease and determine reimbursement for care. Under ICD, which is in its 10th edition, disease classifications are primarily based on signs and symptoms and seldom incorporate rapidly emerging molecular data, incidental patient characteristics, or socio-environmental influences on disease.

This approach may have been adequate in an era when treatments were largely directed toward symptoms rather than underlying causes, but diagnosis based on traditional signs and symptoms alone carries the risk of missing or misclassifying diseases, the committee said. For instance, symptoms in patients are often nonspecific and rarely identify a disease unambiguously, and numerous diseases, such as cancer and HIV infection, are asymptomatic in the early stages. Moreover, many subgroups of certain diseases have diverse molecular causes and are classified as one disease and, conversely, multiple diseases share a common molecular cause and are not categorized in the same disease classification.The new database will involve a framework for creating a “knowledge network of disease” that integrates the rapidly expanding range of information on what causes diseases and allows researchers, health care providers, and the public to share and update this information. The first stage in developing the network would involve creating an “information commons” that links layers of molecular data, medical histories, including information on social and physical environments, and health outcomes to individual patients. The second stage would construct the network and require data mining of the information commons to highlight the data’s interconnectedness and integrate it with evolving research. Fundamentally, data would be continuously deposited by the research community and extracted directly from the medical records of participating patients.

To acquire information for the knowledge network, the committee recommended designing strategies to collect and integrate disease-relevant information; implementing pilot studies to assess the feasibility of integrating molecular parameters with medical histories in the ordinary course of care; and gradually eliminating institutional, cultural, and regulatory barriers to widespread sharing of individuals’ molecular profiles and health histories while still protecting patients’ rights. Much of the initial work necessary to develop the information commons should take the form of observational studies, which would collect molecular and other patient data during treatment. Having this access at point of care could reduce the cost of research, make scientific advances relevant to real-life medicine, and facilitate the use of electronic health records.

The committee noted that moving toward individualized medicine requires that researchers and health care providers have access to very large sets of health and disease-related data linked to individual patients. These data are also critical for developing the information commons, the knowledge network of disease, and ultimately the new taxonomy.