DEMENTIA LITERATURE RESEARCH · CRYPTO COMMUNITY IN DEVELOPMENT
Dementia research. Built to be questioned.
Watch Scout compare published dementia studies, surface counterevidence, and create source-linked drafts for review. Then help us find the next useful question.
Scout screens publications and uses AI to compare available abstracts in owner-started research sessions. Inspect the sources, possible connections and counterevidence. AI drafts need review before becoming editorial reports.
THE RESEARCH PATH / ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT LIVE PROGRESS
RetrievePublic source records
ScreenVersioned rules
InspectSources & limitations
ReviewHuman judgment
THE CURRENT INVESTIGATION
Three questions. No shortcuts.
Our current focus is Alzheimer’s-related cell biology. These are dated reviews of existing studies, not new laboratory experiments. Select a question to inspect the reasoning.
Priority for validationR-004 v1.1 · 8 selected primary publications
Can better fat handling protect neurons?
We are examining whether changing how brain immune cells handle fats can reduce nerve-cell injury, without worsening tau pathology or blood-vessel damage.
01 / SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Mouse and cell studies provide leads for lipid handling. Our correction review retained the direction of partial protection in one genetic experiment.
02 / COUNTEREVIDENCE & LIMITS
That correction is not independent confirmation. A safe human treatment is not established, and the combined neuronal, tau and vascular safety test remains unmet.
03 / WHAT TO CHECK NEXT
Find an independent test of the same intervention and outcome. Check whether authors, data and experimental models overlap.
TREM2 is a signal-related protein in brain immune cells. We compare model, cell state, treatment timing and measured outcomes instead of assuming that more activation is better.
01 / SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Some experimental contexts show protective effects. The comparison keeps those findings tied to their specific models and interventions.
02 / COUNTEREVIDENCE & LIMITS
Other contexts show no benefit or increased injury. AL002 did not establish clinical efficacy in the cited phase 2 trial; target engagement alone is insufficient.
03 / WHAT TO CHECK NEXT
Look for counterevidence that changes a specific claim. Compare the same outcome and explain differences in timing, model and intervention.
Unresolved safety questionR-004 v1.1 · cross-cutting evidence gap
Could a promising result hide a safety gap?
A positive result for neurons does not automatically establish safety for blood vessels. We look for studies that measure both, alongside tau-related outcomes.
01 / SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
R-004 makes neuronal protection, tau effects and vascular outcomes separate checks for judging a candidate direction.
02 / COUNTEREVIDENCE & LIMITS
No candidate in that review establishes all three together. A missing endpoint, or a study too small to detect harm, does not prove safety.
03 / WHAT TO CHECK NEXT
Inspect a cited primary paper for vascular amyloid, barrier leakage or microhemorrhage measurements. Tell us exactly which section you checked.
Sign in to submit. Contributions are stored for manual editorial review; they are not automatically published or accepted as findings.
COMMUNITY IMPACT / FOLLOW THE CHANGE
Your questions. Research that changes.
See how reviewed community contributions helped change a report, prompted a correction or shaped a research question. Every published entry links to the affected report.
Loading published community impact…
Only editor-approved summaries are shown. Contributors remain anonymous; private submission text, editorial notes and X contact details are never included automatically. These are documented research changes, not independently validated discoveries.
Accountability in practice: we found and reviewed a published correction, updated our interpretation, and kept the earlier version available. Read the correction review ↗
These are reviews of existing studies. MNEME has not performed biological experiments, clinical trials or an independently validated discovery.
Dementia describes a group of conditions, not a single disease. We start with a specific question in Alzheimer’s research and keep the limits of that work visible. Read the WHO overview ↗
02 / THE OPEN NOTEBOOK
Planning stage
Show the work. Including the unknowns.
Explore source notes and proposed protocols. A protocol describes a test we want to run; it is not a finding.
YOUR RESEARCH WORKSPACE
Start with a question.
Create a structured protocol draft with a falsifiable test. Saved only in this browser; nothing is submitted to a research team. Want to contribute to the project? Choose a research mission ↗
TOKEN-FUNDED RESEARCH · POLICY IN PREPARATION
Received fees. Visible research spending.
Our intended use of received token fees is to reinvest in research and its AI costs. The allocation percentage and fee mechanism have not been finalized.
Today, the work is AI-assisted review of existing dementia publications: finding sources, comparing studies, checking counterevidence and writing traceable reports. AI model input/output tokens and research infrastructure are real operating costs; they are distinct from funding laboratory experiments.
Token not launchedFee percentage: not finalizedTreasury: not connectedSpending records: not yet published
We will distinguish fees received, funds allocated, actual payments and verified research outputs. No automatic reinvestment mechanism or on-chain audit is currently connected.
