Rivastigmine three times daily improves cognition and response in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the efficacy and safety of rapidly titrated rivastigmine compared to placebo, when administered twice or three times daily in people with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease? Feldman HH, Lane R. Rivastigmine: a placebo-controlled trial of BID and TID regimens in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007 Mar 12; [Epub ahead of print]. ### ![Graphic][1] Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][2] Allocation: Unclear. ### ![Graphic][3] Blinding: Double blinded. ### ![Graphic][4] Follow-up period: Twenty six weeks (treatment period only). ### ![Graphic][5] Setting: Thirty seven research centres, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Italy, South Africa, and the UK; time period not stated. ### ![Graphic][6] Patients: 678 community dwelling adults aged ⩾50 years with Alzheimer’s disease (AD; meeting both DSM-IV criteria and criteria for “probable” Alzheimer’s disease of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer’s disease and Related Disorders Association), and who had a Mini-Mental State Examination score of 10–26. Exclusions: severe obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiac disease, or other life threatening condition; use of anticholinergic drugs, insulin, psychotropics (with some exceptions), supplements containing acetylcholine precursors, or supposed memory enhancers. ### ![Graphic][7] Intervention: Rivastigmine … Dr Howard Feldman, S192–2211 Westbrook Mall, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 2B5 [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".