MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000380420 · doi:10.1177/0269881107083028

Galantamine treatment in Alzheimer's disease with cerebrovascular disease: responder analyses from a randomized, controlled trial (GAL-INT-6)

2008· article· en· W2000380420 on OpenAlex
Timo Erkinjuntti, Serge Gauthier, R. Morris Bullock, Alexander Kurz, Gerry Hammond, S. Schwalen, Yiping Zhu, Robert Brashear

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychopharmacology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalantaminePlaceboInternal medicineMedicineAlzheimer's diseaseAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialNauseaPsychologyAnesthesiaDementiaDonepezilDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease combined with cerebrovascular disease (AD with CVD) is associated with progressive decline, with CVD impacting AD onset and severity of progression. Subjects with confirmed diagnosis of AD with CVD were treated with galantamine during a six-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (N = 285). Responder analyses were performed for cognitive, behavioural and functional outcome measures. Galantamine treatment resulted in significantly greater cognitive and functional improvements compared with placebo at six months, and a significantly higher percentage of treatment responders. The proportion of responders demonstrating improved or maintained cognition on the 11-item AD assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog/11) was 60.5% for galantamine versus 46.0% for placebo (P = 0.013). The proportion of patients responding by at least four-points on the ADAS-cog/11 was significantly greater for the galantamine group compared with placebo (33.6% versus 17.2%; P = 0.003). Seventy-five percent of galantamine-treated subjects improved or remained stable as assessed by CIBIC-plus compared with 53.6% on placebo (P = 0.0006). Significantly higher responder rates were observed with galantamine for behaviour (64.9% versus 56.6%; P = 0.024), and numerically favourable responder rates were seen with galantamine for activities of daily living. Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally related with the gastrointestinal system (nausea 20% versus 10%; vomiting 12% versus 5%; galantamine and placebo groups, respectively). Three deaths occurred during double-blind treatment: 2 of 188 subjects receiving galantamine, and 1 of 97 subjects receiving placebo. These findings are consistent with a broad range of cognitive, functional and behavioural benefits with galantamine across the spectrum of AD and AD with CVD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.395
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