High-dose vitamin B supplements did not slow cognitive decline in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club17 February 2009High-dose vitamin B supplements did not slow cognitive decline in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer diseaseSudeep S. Gill, MD, MScSudeep S. Gill, MD, MScQueen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (S.S.G.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-4-200902170-02007 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationAisen PS, Schneider LS, Sano M, et al. High-dose B vitamin supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease:a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;300:1774-83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18854539Clinical Impact RatingsGIM/FP/GP: Mental Health: Geriatrics: Neurology: References1 Selhub J. The many facets of hyperhomocysteinemia: studies from the Framingham cohorts. J Nutr. 2006;136:1726-30S. [PMID: 16702347] Google Scholar2 Balk EM, Raman G, Tatsioni A, Chung M, Lau J, et al. Vitamin B6, B12, and folic acid supplementation and cognitive function: a systematic review of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:21-30. [PMID: 17210874] Google Scholar3 Malouf R, Grimley Evans J. Folic acid with or without vitamin B12 for the prevention and treatment of healthy elderly and demented people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD004514. [PMID: 18843658] Google Scholar4 Clarke RJ, Bennett DA. B vitamins for prevention of cognitive decline: insufficient evidence to justify treatment [Editorial]. JAMA. 2008;300:1819-21. [PMID: 18854547] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (S.S.G.)This article was published at Annals.org on 3 February 2009. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 17 February 2009Volume 150, Issue 4Page: JC2-7KeywordsActivities of daily livingAlzheimer diseaseDementiaElderlyFolic acidSafetySafety studiesSedatives ePublished: 17 February 2009 Issue Published: 17 February 2009 CopyrightCopyright © 2009 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
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".