A multicenter, blinded, randomized, factorial controlled trial of doxycycline and rifampin for treatment of Alzheimer's disease: the DARAD trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Preliminary evidence suggested that doxycycline and rifampin might stop or slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We carried out a randomized trial to confirm or refute these findings. METHODS: A multicenter, blinded, randomized, 2 × 2 factorial controlled trial, set at 14 geriatric outpatient clinics in Canada. Four hundred and six patients with mild to moderate AD (standardized mini mental state examination (SMMSE) score 14-26) participated. The intervention was 12 months' treatment with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily + rifampin 300 mg daily or doxycycline 100 mg twice daily + placebo-rifampin daily or rifampin 300 mg daily + placebo-doxycycline twice daily or placebo-doxycycline twice daily + placebo-rifampin daily. Coprimary outcomes were the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (SADAS-cog) and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of the Boxes (CDR-SB). Secondary outcomes were the SMMSE, Quick mild cognitive impairment screen, Geriatric Depression Scale, Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, activities of daily living (Lawton Scale), and the Dysfunctional Behavior Rating Instrument frequency and reaction subscales. RESULTS: There was a significant deterioration in SADAS-cog over time with both rifampin and doxycycline in comparison with placebo. When the two were used together, there was no statistically significant decline/deterioration in comparison with placebo (n = 305). For the CDR-SB, there were no significant effects of either rifampin or doxycycline. Secondary outcome results followed similar patterns. CONCLUSION: Twelve months' treatment with doxycycline or rifampin, alone or in combination, has no beneficial effects on cognition or function in AD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".