MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005055799 · doi:10.1002/gps.1341

Effects of memantine on behavioural symptoms in Alzheimer's disease patients: an analysis of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) data of two randomised, controlled studies

2005· review· en· W2005055799 on OpenAlexaff
Serge Gauthier, Yvonne Wirth, Hans Jörg Möbius

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemantineDonepezilPlaceboMedicinePopulationInternal medicinePsychologyDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Behavioural symptoms are common in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). We have analysed the databases of two randomised studies with regard to the effects of memantine treatment on behavioural symptoms, measured using the 12-item version of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). SUBJECTS: The monotherapy study (memantine only) reported by Reisberg et al. (2003) involved 252 patients with baseline MMSE total score of between 3 and 14, whereas the combination study (memantine and donepezil) reported by Tariot et al. (2004) comprised 404 patients with MMSE scores of between 5 and 14. In both studies, patients received 10 mg memantine b.i.d. or matching placebo, and lived in the community. METHODS: For both studies NPI total and individual domains scores were analysed in the ITT population. For the monotherapy study a dichotomised analysis was performed separately for patients who had behavioural symptoms at baseline and for those without pre-existing symptoms. Furthermore, a factor analysis was used to identify any behavioural clusters within the patient population. RESULTS: In both studies, the change in NPI total scores at endpoint was consistently in favour of memantine treatment, reaching statistical significance in the combination study (p = 0.002). Memantine treatment showed a significant beneficial effect in comparison to placebo treatment in the NPI agitation/aggression domain in both studies (p = 0.008; p = 0.001). The dichotomised analysis of the monotherapy study showed that there was significantly less agitation/aggression emerging in the memantine-treated group compared to placebo (p = 0.003). Factor analysis showed that hyperactivity accounted for 27% of the data variance. CONCLUSIONS: Memantine has a beneficial effect on the behavioural symptoms of patients with moderate to severe AD, with the most pronounced effect on agitation/aggression.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations207
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Geriatric PsychiatrySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207