Efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with more severe Alzheimer's disease: a subgroup analysis from a randomized, placebo‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been very limited investigations of cholinesterase inhibitor therapy in more advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The efficacy and safety of donepezil were evaluated in post hoc analyses of a subgroup of patients with more severe AD (standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [sMMSE] score 5-12) within a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in moderate to severe AD (MSAD study). Additional analyses examined whether donepezil's treatment effects were consistent across the full range of baseline AD severity studied (sMMSE score 5-17). METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe AD (n = 290) who were living in the community or in assisted living facilities received donepezil or placebo for 24 weeks; n = 145 in the more severe AD subgroup. The primary outcome measure was the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC-plus) with secondary outcomes including the sMMSE, Severe Impairment Battery, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, and Disability Assessment for Dementia. Analysis of Variance and Analysis of Covariance models tested for treatment x disease severity interaction in the full MSAD study sample. RESULTS: CIBIC-plus scores for donepezil patients were significantly improved compared with placebo for each time-point, with a 0.70 mean treatment difference at Week 24 last observation carried forward (LOCF; p = 0.0002). Significant differences favoring donepezil were noted at Week 24 LOCF for all secondary measures. There were no treatment x severity interactions for any of the efficacy measures. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, donepezil had significant benefits over placebo on global, cognitive, functional, and behavioral measures in a subgroup of patients with more severe AD. Furthermore, the treatment effects of donepezil were not driven by a particular stratum within the moderate to severe dementia range.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".