Does Serotonin Augmentation Have Any Effect on Cognition and Activities of Daily Living in Alzheimer’s Dementia?: A Double-blind Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Recent studies suggest that cholinergic dysfunction does not provide a complete account of age-related cognitive deficits and other neuronal systems like monoaminergic hypofunction are involved. In several studies selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors demonstrated promotion in neurogenesis in the hippocampus and enhanced memory and cognition. The aim of this study is to survey the effect of serotonin augmentation on cognition and activities of daily living in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Method: The trial was designed as a 12-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. One hundred and twenty two patients aged 55-85 years, suffering from mild to moderate alzheimer's dementia were randomly allocated in one of the three treatment group: fluoxetine plus rivastigmine, rivastigmine alone or placebo group. Efficacy measures comprised assessments of cognition, activities of daily living and global functioning. Hamilton Depression Scale also was used to assess changes in mood throughout study. Result: Fluoxetine plus rivastigmine and rivastigmine groups demonstrated improvement on measures of cognitive and memory without any significant difference; however, the former group did better in their activities of daily living and global functioning. Patients taking placebo had significant deterioration in all the efficacy measures. Patients taking rivastigmine or rivastigmine plus fluoxetine had improvements in Hamilton Depression Scale without significant differences. Conclusion: Concomitant use of selective serotonin enhancing agents and acetyl cholinesterase inhibitors can provide greater benefit in activities of daily living and global functioning in patients with cognitive impairment. Although our study is preliminary and larger double blind studies are needed to confirm the results.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".