Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive-enhancing effects of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) have been reported during 6 months of treatment in a pilot study of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Data through 1 year of VNS (collected from June 2000 to September 2003) are now reported. METHOD: All patients (N = 17) met the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria for probable AD. Responder rates for the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were measured as improvement or absence of decline from baseline. Global change, depressive symptoms, and quality of life were also assessed. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels for total tau, tau phosphorylated at Thr181 (phosphotau), and Abeta42 were measured by standardized enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: VNS was well tolerated. After 1 year, 7 (41.2%) of 17 patients and 12 (70.6%) of 17 patients improved or did not decline from baseline on the ADAS-cog and MMSE, respectively. Twelve of 17 patients were rated as having no change or some improvement from baseline on the Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC+). No significant decline in mood, behavior, or quality of life occurred during 1 year of treatment. The median change in CSF tau at 1 year was a reduction of 4.8% (p = .057), with a 5.0% increase in phosphotau (p = .040; N = 14). CONCLUSION: The results of this study support long-term tolerability of VNS among patients with AD and warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".