A pilot randomized controlled trial evaluating an integrated treatment of rivastigmine transdermal patch and cognitive stimulation in patients with Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in a pilot single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial the efficacy of an integrated treatment with rivastigmine transdermal patch (RTP) and cognitive stimulation (CS) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients at 6-month follow-up. METHODS: We enrolled 90 patients with an age ≥65 years admitted to the outpatient Alzheimer's Evaluation Unit with diagnosis of AD. Patients were randomized to enter in the Group-1 (RTP + CS) or in the Group-2 (RTP). All patients at baseline and after 6 months were evaluated with the following tools: Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Distress (NPI-D), and a standardized Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, including also activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA). Mortality risk was assessed using the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI). RESULTS: At baseline no significant difference was shown between the two groups. After 6 months of follow-up, there were significant differences between Group-1 and Group-2 in: MMSE: +6.39% vs. +2.69%, CDR: +6.92% vs. +1.54%, HDRS-D = -60.7% vs. -45.8%, GDS: -60.9% vs. -7.3%, NPI: -55.2% vs. -32.7%%, NPI-D: -55.1% vs. -18.6%, ADL: +13.88% vs. +5.95%, IADL: +67.59% vs. +18.28%, MNA: +12.02% vs. +5.91%, and MPI: -29.03% vs. -12.90%. CONCLUSION: The integrated treatment of RTP with CS in AD patients for 6 months improved significantly cognition, depressive and neuropsychiatric symptoms, functional status, and mortality risk in comparison with a group of AD patients receiving only RTP.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".