Efficacy and safety of donepezil over 3 years: an open‐label, multicentre study in patients with Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This 132-week, open-label extension study assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of donepezil in 579 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) who had previously participated in a 24-week double-blind study of 5 or 10 mg/day donepezil vs placebo. METHOD: Patients enrolled in the present study had a 6-week single-blind placebo washout period followed by treatment with donepezil 5 mg/day for 6 weeks with an optional increase in dosage to 10 mg/day between weeks 6 and 32. RESULTS: After 6 weeks of open-label treatment with donepezil 5 mg/day, mean Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale -- cognitive subscale scores (ADAS-cog) improved by approximately two points, while after 12 weeks of open-label treatment (with a majority of patients receiving 10 mg/day), the mean ADAS-cog score was 1 point better than the score at the end of the placebo washout period. Scores then declined gradually over the remainder of the study. Mean changes in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes scores showed slight improvement over the first 12 weeks of open-label treatment and then slowly declined for the remainder of the study period. Donepezil was well tolerated over the entire 162-week study period. Overall, 85% of patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). The most common included diarrhoea (12%), nausea (11%), infection (11%) and accidental injury (10%). Some patients discontinued the study due to AEs (15%). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the conclusion that donepezil is safe and effective for the long-term treatment of patients with mild to moderate AD.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".