MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018780010 · doi:10.1185/030079902125001029

Functional, Cognitive and Behavioral Effects of Donepezil in Patients with Moderate Alzheimer's Disease

2002· article· en· W2018780010 on OpenAlexaff
Serge Gauthier, Howard Feldman, Jane Hecker, Bruno Vellas, Birol Emir, Ponni Subbiah

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalMcGill University
FundersPfizer
KeywordsDonepezilMedicineAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseCognitionDementiaPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of donepezil in a subgroup of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) of moderate severity from a previous trial. METHODS: Two hundred and seven patients with moderate AD (standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [sMMSE] score 10-17) were randomized to treatment in this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patents received either donepezil, 5 mg/day for the first 28 days and 10 mg/day thereafter according to the clinician's judgement (n = 102), or placebo (n = 105). The primary outcome measure was the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change with caregiver input (CIBIC-plus) at week 24 using a last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis. RESULTS: Baseline patient demographics were similar between treatment groups. Mean age was 74.3 years (range 48-92). Least-squares (LS) mean sMMSE scores at baseline were 13.6 +/- 0.3 for the donepezil group and 13.9 +/- 0.3 for the placebo group. LS mean CIBIC-plus scores for donepezil-treated patients were improved from, or close to, baseline severity at all visits, and were significantly different from placebo at weeks 8, 12, 18, and 24 (week 24 LOCF mean difference = 0.53, p = 0.0003). LS mean change from baseline scores on the sMMSE and Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) for the donepezil group improved throughout the study, and were significantly different from placebo at each visit for the sMMSE (week 24 LOCF mean difference = 2.06, p = 0.0002) and from week 8 for the SIB (week 24 LOCF mean difference = -4.44, p = 0.0026). LS mean change scores on the Disability Assessment for Dementia remained at or above baseline levels throughout the study for the donepezil group, while the placebo group showed a steady decline; treatment differences were significant at each visit (week 24 LOCF mean difference = -9.25, p < 0.0001). LS mean change scores on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory 12-item total improved throughout the study for the donepezil group and were significantly different from placebo at weeks 4 and 24 (week 24 LOCF mean difference = 5.92, p = 0.0022). Eighty-one per cent of donepezil-treated and 89% of placebo-treated patients completed the trial, with 9% and 5%, respectively, discontinuing due to adverse events (AEs). Eighty-two per cent of donepezil-treated and 80% of placebo-treated patients experienced AEs, the majority of which were rated mild in severity and, in general, were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The significant treatment responses observed with donepezil in these patients reinforce the findings from earlier studies that show donepezil to have important benefits, compared wih placebo, across functional, cognitive, and behavioral symptoms, with good tolerability, in patients with AD of moderate severity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations85
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207