Oxytocin for frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and tolerability of 3 doses of intranasal oxytocin (Syntocinon; Novartis, Bern, Switzerland) administered to patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a dose-escalation design to test 3 clinically feasible doses of intranasal oxytocin (24, 48, or 72 IU) administered twice daily for 1 week to 23 patients with behavioral variant FTD or semantic dementia (clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT01386333). Primary outcome measures were safety and tolerability at each dose. Secondary measures explored efficacy across the combined oxytocin vs placebo groups and examined potential dose-related effects. RESULTS: All 3 doses of intranasal oxytocin were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A multicenter trial is warranted to determine the therapeutic efficacy of long-term intranasal oxytocin for behavioral symptoms in FTD. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with FTD, intranasal oxytocin is not significantly associated with adverse events or significant changes in the overall neuropsychiatric inventory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".