Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the different pharmacological approaches to the cognitive, functional, and behavioural manifestations of Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: We searched and critically analyzed the most recent relevant literature on pharmacological treatment of AD. RESULTS: The current pharmacological approach to AD treatment is based on vascular prevention and symptomatic therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and memantine, an N-methyl-d-aspartic acid antagonist. Clinical trials of 6- to 12-month duration have shown statistically significant benefits with ChEIs and memantine on cognitive, global, functional, and behavioural outcome measures. In general, these benefits are modest. However, they are dose-dependent and reproducible across studies. Most importantly, these benefits are symptomatic as they do not alter disease course. According to the third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia, these agents are considered standard treatment options in AD. We will discuss practical issues related to current pharmacological management, such as setting realistic expectations, management of side effects, switching ChEIs, and the decision to discontinue treatment. The results of clinical trials studying potentially disease-modifying approaches in AD will also be reviewed. Unfortunately, although there remains much promise and enthusiasm, none of these agents has shown consistent benefits, and none are available for use in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological options are presently available for the symptomatic treatment of AD. These treatments provide mild but sustained benefits. Before disease-modifying approaches become available, optimizing the use of the available treatment options is crucial.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".