MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008096219 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.9.1.20

Neither vitamin E nor donepezil delays progression from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease in the long term

2006· letter· en· W2008096219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah Blacker

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonepezilCognitive impairmentDiseaseMedicineAlzheimer's diseaseCognitionAmnesiaDementiaTerm (time)PsychologyPediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Petersen RC, Thomas RG, Grundman M, et al . Vitamin E and donepezil for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2379–88.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Do vitamin E or donepezil delay the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in people with the amnestic form of mild cognitive impairment? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: Unclear. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: Double blind. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: Three years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: Sixty nine sites in the United States and Canada; March 1999 to January 2004. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 790 people aged 55–90 years, with amnestic mild cognitive impairment of a degenerative nature. Other inclusion criteria: Clinical Dementia Rating of 0.5; Mini-Mental State Examination score 24 to 30; impaired memory; and Logical Memory delayed recall score about 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below education adjusted norm. ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Intervention: Donepezil (10 mg daily) plus placebo vitamin E; vitamin E (2000 IU daily) plus placebo … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DN%2BEngl%2BJ%2BMed%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa050151%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15829527%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa050151&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15829527&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F9%2F1%2F20.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000229638900004&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative StressFrench-language works237,207