Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, 48-Week Study for Efficacy and Safety of a Higher-Dose Rivastigmine Patch (15 vs. 10 cm<sup>2</sup>) in Alzheimers 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
AIM: Determine whether patients with Alzheimer's disease demonstrating functional and cognitive decline, following 24-48 weeks of open-label treatment with 9.5 mg/24 h (10 cm(2)) rivastigmine patch, benefit from a dose increase in a double-blind (DB) comparative trial of two patch doses. METHODS: Patients meeting prespecified decline criteria were randomized to receive 9.5 or 13.3 mg/24 h (15 cm(2)) patch during a 48-week, DB phase. Coprimary outcomes were change from baseline to week 48 on the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living domain of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-IADL) scale and the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog). Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Of 1,584 patients enrolled, 567 met decline criteria and were randomized. At all timepoints, ADCS-IADL and ADAS-cog scores favoured the 13.3 mg/24 h patch. The 13.3 mg/24 h patch was statistically superior to the 9.5 mg/24 h patch on the ADCS-IADL scale from week 16 (p = 0.025) onwards including week 48 (p = 0.002), and ADAS-cog at week 24 (p = 0.027), but not at week 48 (p = 0.227). No unexpected safety concerns were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The 13.3 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch significantly reduced deterioration in IADL, compared with the 9.5 mg/24 h patch, and was well tolerated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it