A double-blind, placebo controlled, cross-over trial of adjunctive donepezil for cognitive impairment in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there have been several case reports suggesting the beneficial effect of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the cognitive deficits seen in schizophrenia, controlled studies have revealed contradictory results. The aim of this study was to investigate if donepezil could improve cognitive functions in schizophrenia. Twelve schizophrenic patients, who were diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria and who had been on a stable dose of a high-potency typical antipsychotic for a minimum period of 3 months, participated in this 12-wk double-blind, placebo controlled, cross-over study of donepezil adjunctive treatment. Patients were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive 5 mg/d donepezil or placebo for 6 wk, and then were crossed over to the alternate condition for 6 additional weeks. At baseline, 6 and 12 wk, patients were evaluated with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Calgary Depression Scale, the Wechsler Memory Scale Revised (WMS-R), a test for Verbal Fluency, Trail Making Test, Parts A and B, and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Treatment effect was not significant in any of the cognitive measures. There were also no significant changes in the PANSS and depression scores. Nicotinic receptor desensitization may cause non-responsiveness to acetylcholine as previously suggested, but the most likely explanation appears to be that defects in other neurotransmitter systems account for the cognitive deficits seen in schizophrenic patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".