Treatment Effect Size of Memantine Therapy in Alzheimer Disease and Vascular Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to assess the clinical relevance of the significant results reported in clinical trials of memantine therapy for Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia. We sought to understand what clinically detectable changes would be evident to the patient with dementia, their caregivers, and the treating physician during a trial of memantine therapy. A literature search was performed on MedLine, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane database. The statistically significant findings from the memantine literature were reviewed using treatment effect size as a measure of clinical meaningfulness. There have been 3 phase 2 studies of memantine in dementia, and 6 phase 3 studies published as of August 1, 2005. Of the 6 published phase 3 trials of memantine in dementia; 2 were in mild-moderate vascular dementia, 1 in mild-moderate AD, 2 in moderate-severe AD, and 1 in severe dementia (both AD and vascular dementia). The most convincing evidence of a clinically meaningful treatment effect of memantine therapy is in the moderate-severe AD patient population. Cognition, as measured by the Severe Impairment Battery, had an effect size of 0.32 and 0.49 in the 2 published trials, indicating a small-to-medium effect of the medication. Global, functional, and behavioral scales also showed a small-to-medium response to memantine.
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".