A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Valproate for Agitation and Aggression in Alzheimer’s Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of valproate for the treatment of agitation and aggression in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of valproate in institutionalized AD patients. Patients were assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory at baseline and after 6 weeks of treatment with valproate and placebo, with 2 weeks between phases to allow for placebo washout and tapering. RESULTS: Fourteen patients (8 male/6 female) aged 85.6 +/- 4.5 years with baseline Mini Mental State Examination scores of 4.5 +/- 4.6 and NPI agitation/aggression scores of 6.4 +/- 3.5 were randomized to treatment. NPI agitation/aggression treatment change scores significantly worsened during valproate treatment compared with placebo (Z = -2.03, p = 0.04). Tolerability of valproate was also poor, with patients experiencing a significantly greater mean number of adverse events during valproate therapy compared to placebo (Z = -2.82, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Valproate is not effective for the management of agitation in moderate-to-severe AD, and may be poorly tolerated in this population.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it