Efficacy and safety of galantamine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: multicentre randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled trial. SETTING: 86 outpatient clinics in Europe and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 653 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. INTERVENTION: Patients randomly assigned to galantamine had their daily dose escalated over three to four weeks to maintenance doses of 24 or 32 mg. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on the 11 item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's disease assessment scale, the clinician's interview based impression of change plus caregiver input, and the disability assessment for dementia scale. The effect of apolipoprotein E4 genotype on reponse to treatment was also assessed. RESULTS: At six months, patients who received galantamine had a significantly better outcome on the 11 item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's disease assessment scale than patients in the placebo group (mean treatment effect 2.9 points for lower dose and 3.1 for higher dose, intention to treat analysis, P<0.001 for both doses). Galantamine was more effective than placebo on the clinician's interview based impression of change plus caregiver input (P<0.05 for both doses v placebo). At six months, patients in the higher dose galantamine group had significantly better scores on the disability assessment for dementia scale than patients in the placebo group (mean treatment effect 3.4 points, P<0.05). Apolipoprotein E genotype had no effect on the efficacy of galantamine. 80% (525) of patients completed the study. CONCLUSION: Galantamine is effective and well tolerated in Alzheimer's disease. As galantamine slowed the decline of functional ability as well as cognition, its effects are likely to be clinically relevant.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".