Table 1.
Differences in the constitutive characteristics and opinions towards the ACH of pro-ACH and non-ACH groups identified in the 173 survey participants. Gender differences were significant between the pro-ACH and non-ACH groups, with significantly more men being pro-ACH. Taken together, these results suggest an association between having pro-ACH opinions and more publications, industry money, and self-identifying as a key opinion leader. ‡Fisher’s exact test was used to compare groups for categorical variables
| All | Non-ACH | Pro-ACH | p ‡ | |
| N = 173 | N = 133 | N = 38 | ||
| (76.88%) | (21.97%) | |||
| Age > 60 y | 19 (11.05%) | 10 (7.52%) | 8 (21.05%) | 0.031* |
| Gender | 0.035* | |||
| Female | 83 (49.70%) | 71 (55.47%) | 12 (31.58%) | |
| Male | 80 (47.90%) | 54 (42.19%) | 25 (65.79%) | |
| Prefer not to say | 3 (1.80%) | 2 (1.56%) | 1 (2.63%) | |
| Trans | 1 (0.60%) | 1 (0.78%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Continent of Major Affiliation | 0.243 | |||
| North Africa | 1 (0.60%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| North America | 101 (60.12%) | 78 (60.47%) | 23 (60.53%) | |
| South America | 11 (6.55%) | 10 (7.75%) | 1 (2.63%) | |
| Asia | 9 (5.36%) | 9 (6.98%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Europe | 40 (23.81%) | 28 (21.71%) | 12 (31.58%) | |
| Oceania | 6 (3.57%) | 4 (3.10%) | 2 (5.26%) | |
| Publications number > 100 | 24 (14.04%) | 14 (10.53%) | 10 (27.03%) | 0.016* |
| Profession | ||||
| Clinical researcher | 67 (38.73%) | 51 (38.35%) | 15 (39.47%) | 0.236 |
| Other | 18 (10.40%) | 16 (12.03%) | 1 (2.63%) | |
| Pre-clinical scientist in academia | 88 (50.87%) | 66 (49.62%) | 22 (57.89%) | |
| Key Opinion Leader (Yes) | 26 (15.48%) | 16 (12.40%) | 10 (26.32%) | 0.045* |
| Received money from pharma company (Yes) | 29 (16.86%) | 18 (13.53%) | 11 (28.95%) | 0.047* |
| Questions regarding the ACH’s validity | ||||
| ACH drugs are NOT a source of optimism for treating human AD. | 86 (54.09%) | 86 (71.67%) | 0 (0.00%) | < 0.001* |
| Beta-amyloid is NOT the #1 therapeutic priority either at preclinical, early, or late-stage AD. | 119 (69.59%) | 119 (90.15%) | 0 (0.00%) | < 0.001* |
| There is problematic adherence to the ACH from either industry, academia, associations or funding bodies | 125 (73.96%) | 105 (80.15%) | 20 (54.05%) | 0.002* |
| Moving forwards (2019–), the ACH is a useful tool to guide research. | 60 (35.50%) | 35 (26.92%) | 24 (63.16%) | < 0.001* |
| Agree with Tanzi (2015): “The clinical trials are failing the hypothesis, the hypothesis is not failing the trial.” | 76 (44.71%) | 45 (34.35%) | 30 (78.95%) | < 0.001* |
| Agree with Tanzi (2017): “we need to find people with amyloid buildup on their brain early” and target it. | 89 (52.35%) | 56 (42.75%) | 32 (84.21%) | < 0.001* |
| Agree with Davies (2016): “we’re flogging a dead horse” (A-beta) | 54 (31.76%) | 52 (39.69%) | 2 (5.26%) | < 0.001* |
| Agree with Herrup (2015): “clinging to an inaccurate disease model is the option we should fear most.” | 82 (48.52%) | 75 (57.69%) | 7 (18.42%) | < 0.001* |