Analyses of mortality risk in patients with dementia treated with galantamine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze mortality data from patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), Alzheimer's plus cerebrovascular disease (AD + CVD) or vascular dementia (VaD). METHODS: (1) Meta-analysis of mortality data from double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials; and (2) recontact study to collect additional longer term mortality data from previous galantamine trial participants. RESULTS (META-ANALYSIS): Across 12 trials (< or =6 months duration), there was no increased risk of mortality associated with the use of galantamine (n = 4116) compared with that of placebo (n = 2386) (OR galantamine/placebo: 0.67, 95% CI 0.41-1.10). RESULTS (RECONTACT STUDY): Median survival was 79 months for patients with AD (n = 478) and 59 months for patients with AD + CVD (n = 180) or VaD (n = 145). Prolonged galantamine treatment (> vs < or =6 months) was not associated with decreased survival time (75 vs 61 months respectively; P = 0.02). Cox regression analyses were consistent with the Kaplan-Meier analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We found no short-term or longer term evidence of increased risk of mortality associated with the use of galantamine in patients with AD, AD + CVD or VaD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".