Long term donepezil did not delay institutionalisation or progression to disability in patients with Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AD2000 Collaborative Group . Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD2000): randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 2004;363:2105–15. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), does donepezil delay entry to institutional care or progression of disability? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★☆☆ Neurology ★★★★★★☆ Geriatrics ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial (AD2000 study). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: {concealed*}†. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded {patients, healthcare providers, data collectors, and outcome assessors}†.* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 3 years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: 22 hospitals in the UK. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 566 patients (59% women, median age 75–76 y) who were referred to memory clinics with a suspected DSM-IV diagnosis of dementia of Alzheimer type, with or without coexisting vascular dementia; had a regular carer; lived in the community; were not taking a cholinesterase inhibitor; and had no contraindications to donepezil. ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Intervention: during a 12 week run in period, patients were allocated to donepezil, 5 mg/day (n = 283), or … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DCourtney%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%26rft.volume%253D363%26rft.issue%253D9427%26rft.spage%253D2105%26rft.epage%253D2115%26rft.atitle%253DLong-term%2Bdonepezil%2Btreatment%2Bin%2B565%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2BAlzheimer%2527s%2Bdisease%2B%2528AD2000%2529%253A%2Brandomised%2Bdouble-blind%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252804%252916499-4%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15220031%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=10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16499-4&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15220031&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F10%2F1%2F15.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000222268300006&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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".