MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059393353 · doi:10.1159/000324438

A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial of <i>Melissa officinalis</i> Oil and Donepezil for the Treatment of Agitation in Alzheimer’s Disease

2011· article· en· W2059393353 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicinal Plant Extracts Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEisaiRoyal Botanical Gardens, KewHenry Smith CharityAlzheimer Society
KeywordsPlaceboDonepezilAromatherapyRandomized controlled trialMelissa officinalisMedicineAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyRandomizationClinical trialPsychiatryPsychomotor agitationDementiaInternal medicineDiseaseTraditional medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Behavioural and psychological symptoms (BPSD) are frequent in people with Alzheimer's disease and cause considerable stress to patients and their carers. Antipsychotics have been widely used as a first-line treatment, resulting in an estimated 1,800 excess strokes and 1,600 excess deaths in the UK alone. Safe and effective alternatives are urgently needed. Based upon preliminary evidence from clinical trials, aromatherapy with melissa oil may be such an alternative, but initial studies have been modest in size, and adequate blinding has been problematic. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of melissa aromatherapy in the treatment of agitation in people with Alzheimer's disease in an adequately powered and robustly blinded randomized controlled trial comparing it with donepezil, an anticholinesterase drug used with some benefit to treat BPSD. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study was a double-blind parallel-group placebo-controlled randomized trial across 3 specialist old age psychiatry centres in England. Participants had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, were resident in a care home, had clinically significant agitation (defined as a score of 39 or above on the Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory) and were free of antipsychotics and/or anticholinesterase for at least 2 weeks. Participants were allocated to 1 of 3 groups: placebo medication and active aromatherapy; active medication and placebo aromatherapy or placebo of both. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome measure was reduction in agitation as assessed by the Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (PAS) at 4 weeks. This is an observational scale, and raters were required to wear nose clips to ensure that full blinding was maintained. The PAS, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI; another measure of BPSD) and other outcome measures were completed at baseline, 4-week and 12-week follow-ups. 114 participants were randomized, of whom 94 completed the week 4 assessment and 81 completed the week 12 assessment. Aromatherapy and donepezil were well tolerated. There were no significant differences between aromatherapy, donepezil and placebo at week 4 and week 12, but importantly there were substantial improvements in all 3 groups with an 18% improvement in the PAS and a 37% improvement in the NPI over 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: When assessed using a rigorous design which ensures blinding of treatment arms, there is no evidence that melissa aromatherapy is superior to placebo or donepezil, in the treatment of agitation in people with Alzheimer's disease. However, the sizeable improvement in the placebo group emphasizes the potential non-specific benefits of touch and interaction in the treatment of agitation in people with Alzheimer's disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · 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