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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".