Propentofylline Treatment for Alzheimer Disease and Vascular Dementia: An Economic Evaluation Based on Functional Abilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Canadian economic evaluation of propentofylline (a therapy shown to be effective for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease and/or vascular dementia) versus standard care was conducted. Patients were categorized by functional abilities according to the Alberta Resident Classification System by translating measures that were originally captured through the Gottfries-Bråne-Steen scale. The Alberta Resident Classification System was then linked to a community dataset of home care costs for a population with dementia. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses were performed from the perspective of the Ministry of Health, the caregiver, and society using an intent-to-treat analysis for propentofylline versus placebo. Results, limited to the 48-week clinical trial duration, indicated that propentofylline improved health outcomes of persons with dementia as statistically significant treatment effects were found. However, although an incremental cost for the propentofylline intervention was incurred from the Ministry of Health perspective, home care and, to a larger extent, caregiver costs were reduced. Savings in these areas may have partially offset annual treatment medication costs because a non-statistically significant cost difference was observed from a societal perspective.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".