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
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".