Specific symptomatic changes following donepezil treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a multi‐centre, primary care, open‐label study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standard measurement scales used in anti-dementia trials may not capture symptomatic changes recognized by clinicians and caregivers. We studied a symptom checklist, completed separately by caregivers and by clinicians, to identify patterns of change associated with donepezil treatment. METHODS: In a multi-centre, 6-month, open-label study of 101 primary care patients, changes in a 19-symptom checklist were assessed in relation to changes in standardized scales of cognition, activities of daily living, behavior, and caregiver burden. RESULTS: Three symptoms were reported in more than 80% of patients by both clinicians and caregivers: problems in remembering, (97%), temporal orientation (89%), and repetitiveness (85%). Five others overlapped on each of the clinician and caregiver 'top ten', including cognitive activation, spatial orientation, leisure, attention, and apathy. Clinicians reported that symptoms did not improve in 38 patients, whereas there was some improvement in 43, and improvement in most symptoms in 20. Caregivers reported that symptoms did not improve in 55 patients, whereas 27 and 19 patients showed some and most symptoms improving respectively. Patients with the greatest symptomatic improvement also improved most on the ADAS-Cog and the other standardized measures, whereas no improvement (or decline) in each standardized measure was observed in people whose symptoms worsened or did not improve. CONCLUSION: A symptom checklist allowed clinically meaningful profiles to be identified, but revealed different estimates of response between clinicians and caregivers. Both agreed that improved executive function was the most common response. A symptom checklist can help translate between standard measures and everyday practice.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".