Use of Anti-Dementia Drugs in Relation to Change in Cognition, Behavior, and Functioning in Alzheimer’s Disease over a Three-Year Period: Kuopio ALSOVA Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by deterioration in cognition, decline in physical function, and increase in behavioral disturbances. These symptoms are associated with dependence. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the use of anti-dementia drugs in relation to change in cognition, function, and behavior over a 3-year period. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the prospective follow-up ALSOVA study. All study participants (n = 236) had very mild or mild AD at baseline. All participants and their informal caregivers underwent annual clinical and medication assessments. Repeated measures logistic regression was used to compute odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for factors associated with anti-dementia drug use and disease progression measures over time. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of anti-dementia drug use remained stable (from 89% to 92%) during the follow-up period. The use of memantine and cholinesterase inhibitor-memantine combination treatment increased with disease severity. After adjustment for confounding, a one-point increase in the disease severity scale (CDR-SOB) was associated with 15.6% increased odds of memantine use. A one-point decrease in CERAD Neuropsychological battery (CERAD-NB) total score was associated with 2.4% increased odds of memantine use. The overall unadjusted rate of switching between anti-dementia drugs was 9.17 (95% CI 7.10 to 11.88) changes per 100 person-years. CONCLUSION: Nearly 90% of newly diagnosed persons with AD were prescribed anti-dementia drugs. Use of memantine was found to be associated with disease progression. Switching and use of anti-dementia drugs was consistent with Finnish and European clinical practice guidelines for 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".