MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095173910 · doi:10.1159/000377672

Cerebrolysin in Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

2015· review· en· W2095173910 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebrolysinPlaceboRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisMedicineInternal medicineClinical trialDementiaOdds ratioAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a systematic and quantitative summary of benefit and risk of Cerebrolysin in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to avoid major deficiencies of an earlier meta-analysis. DESIGN: This is a meta-analysis of randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified with the help of PubMed, the Cochrane Dementia Group database, the Center for Collaborative Neurosciences, and references from reviews; no language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: All randomized double-blind placebo-controlled studies on 30 ml/day of Cerebrolysin in mild-to-moderate AD were included. RESULTS: There were 6 eligible randomized controlled trials comparing Cerebrolysin with placebo. For all studies, either individual patient data and/or published data (aggregate data) were available. Analyses were based on the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomized global clinical change and for safety criteria, on the standardized mean difference (SMD) for pooling of cognitive function, and on the Mann-Whitney statistic (MW) for multivariate analysis of 'global benefit' (combined effect of global clinical change and cognitive function). Cerebrolysin was significantly more effective than placebo at 4 weeks regarding cognitive function (4 weeks: SMD -0.40 points; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.13; p = 0.0031; 6 months: SMD -0.37 points; 95% CI -0.90 to 0.16; p = 0.1710), at 4 weeks and 6 months regarding global clinical change (4 weeks: OR 3.32; 95% CI 1.20-9.21; p = 0.0212; 6 months: OR 4.98; 95% CI 1.37-18.13; p = 0.0150), and at 4 weeks and 6 months regarding 'global benefit' (combined efficacy criteria; 4 weeks: MW 0.57, 95% CI 0.53-0.61; p = 0.0006; 6 months: MW 0.57; 95% CI 0.53-0.61; p = 0.0010). The safety aspects of Cerebrolysin were comparable to placebo. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis provides evidence that Cerebrolysin has an overall beneficial effect and a favorable benefit-risk ratio in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. Cerebrolysin as a therapeutic agent should be considered by clinicians seeking treatment options for mild-to-moderate AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.014
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.273
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it