Pharmacological treatment in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-severe stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a clinically diagnosable entity that represents a substantial burden to our healthcare system in terms of its prevalence, symptomatology, caregiver stress and economics. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we review the data from currently available clinical trials aimed at treatment of this later stage of the disease. METHODS: A literature search was performed and published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the majority of the study population consisted of Alzheimer patients in the moderate-to-severe stage were selected for review. RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs were identified in which the study population consisted of mainly moderate-to-severe AD patients. The results from these studies suggest that memantine and donepezil, individually or in combination, provide measurable global, cognitive and behavioral benefits in AD patients. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological treatment of moderate-to-severe AD patients can be beneficial. However, cost-benefit data are limited, and the long-term effects and the optimal duration of treatment as patients continue to progress to more severe stages are unknown and require further investigation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".