Effectiveness of Gabapentin for the Treatment of Behavioral Disorders in Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve patients with moderate to severe dementia and severe behavioral disorders were treated with open-label gabapentin (200-1,200 mg/day) for 8 weeks in a prospective case-series design. Patients were nonresponders to previous trials of neuroleptics. Behaviors were measured at 2-week intervals with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). Gabapentin was generally well tolerated in this population. Although 42% of patients experienced adverse events such as gait instability and sedation, only two patients discontinued treatment prematurely because of adverse events. Average patient scores for the CMAI and the NPI remained unchanged after gabapentin. On the CGI, two patients were much improved, three were minimally improved, six were unchanged, and one was minimally worse. Gabapentin may have a role in treating a subgroup of dementia patients with severe behavioral disorders who have not responded to neuroleptics.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".