Role of statins in Alzheimer's disease: a retrospective meta-analysis for commonly investigated clinical parameters in RCTs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review was conducted to assess the role of statins in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We conducted meta-analysis using the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients who suffered from Alzheimer's disease, by conducting searches for RCTs in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane (up to 2012). An overall of five studies were included and analysed. The evaluation was done for some commonly evaluated clinical parameters like Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-CoG). Statistical evaluation was done as per method described by Neyeloff et al. and forest plots were plotted for each evaluated parameter. MMSE score showed a significant difference in favour of statins. ADAS-CoG and CGIC did not show a significant advantage for statins in comparison to placebo. Highly heterogeneous distribution was seen for MMSE score. Further trials need to be conducted to arrive at more robust results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".