MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113230922 · doi:10.1002/gps.636

Gender, aggression and serotonergic function are associated with response to sertraline for behavioral disturbances in Alzheimer's disease

2002· article· en· W2113230922 on OpenAlexafffund
Krista L. Lanctôt, Nathan Herrmann, Robert van Reekum, Goran Eryavec, Claudio A. Naranjo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalHealth Sciences CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoNorth York General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsSerotonergicSertralineAggressionIrritabilityPsychologyPlaceboFenfluraminePsychiatryInternal medicineMedicineClinical psychologySerotoninAntidepressantAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Indications for serotonergic medications in the treatment of behavioral disorders associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) remain to be established. METHOD: Sertraline (100 mg OD) was evaluated in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over study in 22 nondepressed patients with severe probable AD and significant behavioral disturbance. Each subject was given a fenfluramine challenge to evaluate central serotonergic tone. RESULTS: Eight of 21 (38%) completers responded to sertraline. Drug responsive behaviors included aggression/agitation, irritability and aberrant motor behavior. Low aggression, female gender and large prolactin increase were associated with a better response. There was a trend for decreased aggression during sertraline versus placebo (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Aggression, gender and serotonergic function were associated with sertraline response. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the profile of responders.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Geriatric PsychiatrySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207