Efficacy and Safety of Galantamine Hydrobromide in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review and meta analysis of randomized controlled trials of galantamine hydrobromide in the treatment of mild to moderate dementia. Following a literature search and screening process, we included 15 trials and five companion papers in the review. Moderate-quality evidence suggested galantamine-treated persons generally had better outcomes than placebo-treated persons after a maximum 6-month follow-up. Outcome domains included cognitive function, global function, behaviour and mood, and activities of daily living. The evidence requires careful interpretation because ‘better outcomes’ can mean less deterioration, rather than improvement, relative to placebo. Galantamine has not been shown to halt dementia progression nor reverse disease course. The most frequently reported harms were nausea, diarrhea, and dizziness. Reported rates of these harms were highly variable (range, 0%–40%); reporting was at high risk of bias because authors rarely specified the frequency or timing of harms assessment, nor did they report active methods of collecting harms.
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 | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".