Effects of Rivastigmine on Memory and Cognition in Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction is one of the common clinical symptoms in multiple sclerosis (MS), but there is no effective treatment for it. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of rivastigmine in treating memory and cognitive dysfunction in MS. METHODS: A single-center double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted from October 2005 to February 2007. Sixty definite MS patients with cognitive impairment age 16 to 54 years were randomly allocated to receive a 12-week treatment course of either rivastigmine (1.5 mg once a day increment over 4 weeks to 3 mg twice daily) or placebo. Response to treatment was assessed by the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) at baseline and 12 weeks after start of therapy. RESULTS: A slight, but significant memory improvement occurred in both groups. Of the 30 patients treated with rivastigmine, the mean (SD) WMS general memory score increased from 60.3 (4.2) at baseline to 64.9 (5.3) at the end of study period (P<0.001). Correspondingly, in the 30 patients treated with placebo, the mean (SD) WMS general memory score increased from 60.5 (4.9) to 64.5 (3.7) (P < 0.001). The average WMS general memory score at the end of trial did not changed between rivastigmine and placebo group (mean difference, 0.4; 95% CI, -2.0, 2.8). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were seen between rivastigmine and placebo on the mean (SD) WMS general memory score. A larger multicenter study of rivastigmine in MS is warranted in order to more definitely assess the efficacy of this intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".