MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985001841 · doi:10.1185/03007990802417713

A retrospective study of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease: cerebrovascular disease as a predictor of patient outcomes

2008· article· en· W1985001841 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claudie Charbonneau, Fadi Massoud, Marc Dorais, Jacques LeLorier

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôtel-Dieu de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGalantamineDementiaRetrospective cohort studyDiseaseInternal medicineRivastigmineCholinesteraseClinical endpointMedical prescriptionCohort studyDonepezilClinical trialPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dementia may be caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), or a combination of both. When CVD is associated with dementia, survival is thought to be reduced. It is unclear whether treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), which has been found to slow disease progression in AD patients, has similar benefits in vascular forms of dementia. OBJECTIVES: The present study was designed to determine whether co-existing CVD is associated with survival or time to nursing home placement (NHP) among AD patients treated with ChEIs. Findings of poorer outcomes in patients with versus without CVD might argue against the use of ChEIs for AD patients in whom CVD co-exists. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using the Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec (RAMQ) databases to examine the time to NHP or death for AD patients aged 66+, with or without CVD, treated with ChEIs between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. Because ChEIs are approved only for AD in Canada, a ChEI prescription was used as a surrogate for an AD diagnosis. Separate analyses were performed for patients with persistent ChEI use and those who discontinued ChEI therapy. RESULTS: A total of 4428 patients met inclusion criteria for AD with CVD; 13 512 were classified as having AD alone. For the composite endpoint of NHP or death, 1000-day survival rates were lower among AD patients with versus without CVD (p < 0.01), but absolute differences were very small (84 vs. 86% with continuous ChEI use; 77 vs. 78% with discontinuous ChEI therapy). Of the secondary endpoints, time to death was shorter for patients with versus without CVD, but time to NHP did not differ between groups. LIMITATIONS: Results may have been affected by selection (misclassification) bias and between-group differences in smoking, body mass index, and duration of ChEI therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between co-existing CVD and time to NHP or death appeared to be of little clinical relevance among AD patients treated with ChEIs. The lack of difference between AD patients with and without CVD suggests that CVD should not be used as a reason to deny AD patients access to ChEI treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207