Not really arguing the existence of disturbed sleep in all its forms in AD patients. In fact arguing it is perhaps the "early warning sign" may indeed have validity.
I just do not subscribe to it being a primary identifier of any one condition which in the end is the intent of Hampel et al pursuit of a target for a Precision Medicine approach in this case to AD.
How many 'critics" here have attempted to debunk as mis- diagnosed enrollees in the "original 32"?
As with interpretations of Corporate conduct, time will tell, but a more critical application of available tools
IMHO
is most useful to future success. Not a generalized "aspirin" designation for hopes or compounds.