MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051601876 · doi:10.1179/01610425017631

Treatment of vascular dementia—evidence from clinical trials with cholinesterase inhibitors

2004· review· en· W2051601876 on OpenAlexaff
Timo Erkinjuntti, Gustavo C. Román, Serge Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurological Research · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalantamineRivastigmineDonepezilBasal forebrainDementiaVascular dementiaCholinergicCholinesteraseMedicineDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseCognitive declineCognitionNeuroscienceClinical trialInternal medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebrovascular disease (CVD), as well as secondary ischemic brain injury from cardiovascular disease, are common causes of dementia and cognitive decline in the elderly. Also, CVD frequently contributes to cognitive loss in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Progress in understanding the pathogenetic mechanism involved in vascular cognitive impairment and vascular dementia (VaD) has resulted in promising treatments of these conditions. Cholinergic deficits in VaD are due to ischemia of basal forebrain nuclei and of cholinergic pathways and can be treated with the use of the cholinesterase inhibitors used in AD. Controlled clinical trials with donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine in VaD, as well as in patients with AD plus CVD, have demonstrated improvement in cognition, behavior and activities of daily living.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.695
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.117 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurological ResearchSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207