MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545353143

Evidence that the clinical effects of cholinesterase inhibitors are related to potency and targeting of action.

2002· article· en· W1545353143 on OpenAlexaff
Johanne Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsButyrylcholinesteraseCholinesteraseAcetylcholinesteraseRivastigmineAcetylcholinePharmacologyCholinergicTacrineTolerabilityChemistryMedicineAchéDiseaseDonepezilInternal medicineEnzymeDementiaBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since degenerative alterations associated with cholinergic changes in the brains of demented patients occur in specific regions, optimal efficacy may be achieved by targeting the actions of potent cholinesterase inhibitors in relevant regions. When evaluating the activities of these agents, only cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-based studies in demented patients provide reliable data. Preclinical or healthy volunteer studies of cholinesterase inhibitory activity using plasma or erythrocytes as an enzyme source are inconclusive due to differences between enzymes, their relative activities, and the profiles of their isoforms from different sources, with additional changes during disease progression. Tacrine and rivastigmine inhibit both acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE) in the CSF of Alzheimer's disease patients. Both enzymes are involved in the breakdown of acetylcholine (ACh) in the brain and dual inhibition may lead to greater, broader efficacy, as well as a greater potential for disease modification. However, potent and rapid elevation in levels of ACh may also induce more acute tolerability problems, such as nausea and vomiting. Only rivastigmine appears to show brain region-selectivity, particularly for regions involved in attention and behaviour and that are known to degenerate during the progression of various dementia types. This selectivity is due to preferential inhibition of the G1 form of AChE and, probably, also BuChE. Cholinesterase inhibitors that lack preferential selectivity for particular isoforms may provide less targeted actions. This may explain the relatively higher incidences of certain peripheral side effects observed during maintenance treatment with some of these drugs. All cholinesterase inhibitors interact via ACh, additionally available due to enzyme inhibition, with nicotinic and muscarinic receptors (nAChRs and mAChRs). Allosteric modulation of a presynaptic nAChR has been shown in vitro with many of these agents, and it has been proposed, but not demonstrated, that this may result in an increased release and potentiation of ACh in the brain. The clinical relevance of this mechanism is unknown. The rapidly reversible actions of donepezil, tacrine and galantamine may lead to tolerance due to their ability to upregulate target enzyme activities; however upregulation is not seen with the slowly reversible (pseudo-irreversible) inhibitor rivastigmine. Available clinical data support the hypothesis that potent, slowly reversible inhibitors of AChE and BuChE targeted to the G1 isoforms may lead to greater, broader and more sustained benefits. However, further investigation of the cholinesterase inhibitors to elucidate more definitely the clinical consequences of their differing pharmacological properties is required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207