MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1989703975 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2008.05.2475

P4‐404: Donepezil therapy for patients with Alzheimer's disease: Treatment benefits in “nonresponders”

2008· article· en· W1989703975 on OpenAlexaff
David Wilkinson, Elias Schwam, Howard Feldman, Gunhild Waldemar, Roy Jones, Yikang Xu, Rachel Schindler

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonepezilPlaceboMedicineCognitive declineInternal medicineAlzheimer's diseaseMini–Mental State ExaminationCognitionOdds ratioOddsDiseaseDementiaPsychologyPsychiatryLogistic regressionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been an expectation for some that treatment benefit in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is demonstrated only by improvement or stabilization. Thus, patients demonstrating less-than-expected decline may be erroneously characterized as “nonresponders”. The objective of these analyses was to investigate whether donepezil-treated patients classified as “nonresponders” actually experience less-than-expected decline compared with matched placebo patients. Data were pooled from 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of donepezil for AD. Analyses were restricted to 1439 patients with baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores ≥10 (range, 10–28). Changes from baseline to Week 24 on the MMSE and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) were assessed in placebo and donepezil-treated patients meeting criteria for 3 definitions of “nonresponse” at Week 24, as follows: (1) decline in cognition (MMSE) only; (2) decline in cognition (MMSE) and global; (3) decline in cognition (MMSE), global and function. A lower percentage of donepezil-treated patients than placebo patients met the criteria for each definition of “nonresponse”: (1) 31% versus 45%; (2) 14% versus 28%; (3) 6% versus 14%. Importantly, although placebo percentages were smaller using more stringent definitions of “nonresponse” (definitions 2 and 3), more than twice as many placebo patients met the definition criteria compared with donepezil-treated patients. Regardless of the definition, the odds of declining were significantly reduced for donepezil-treated patients versus placebo patients (P<0.0001; all definitions). Among patients meeting criteria for definitions 1 and 2, mean declines in MMSE and ADAS-cog scores from baseline to Week 24 were significantly greater for placebo than donepezil-treated patients (P<0.03 for both definitions); among patients meeting criteria for the most stringent definition of “nonresponse”, definition 3, mean declines in MMSE and ADAS-cog from baseline were also greater for placebo patients, but between-group differences were not statistically significant. In this population of mild to moderate AD patients, donepezil treatment was associated with reduced worsening of clinical AD symptoms during the 6-month study period. These analyses demonstrate that AD patients characterized as “nonresponders” to donepezil therapy may still derive benefits over placebo/untreated patients. This is an important finding and concept in assessing treatment benefits in a progressive disease.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→