Anti-dementia drugs and changes in gait: a pre-post quasi-experimental pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anti-dementia drugs may improve gait performance. No comparison between acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (CEIs) and memantine-related changes in gait variability has been reported. The objectives of this study were to 1) quantify and compare the mean values and coefficients of variation (CoV) of stride time in demented patients with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRD) before and after the use of CEIs or memantine, and in age- and gender-matched controls patients with ADRD using no anti-dementia drugs; and 2) to determine whether changes in CoV of stride time differed between CEIs or memantine. METHODS: A total of 120 demented patients with mild-to-moderate ADRD were prospectively included in this pre-post quasi-experimental study with two intervention groups (43 patients taking CEIs, and 41 taking memantine) and a control group (36 age- and gender matched patients without any anti-dementia drugs). CoV of stride time and walking speed were measured with GAITRite® system while usual walking at steady state. Age, gender, number of drugs daily taken, use of psychoactive drugs, body mass index and time between the two visits were also recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups for the time between baseline and follow-up assessments (232.9 ± 103.7 days for patients without anti-dementia drugs, 220.0 ± 67.5 days for patients with CEIs, 186.7 ± 96.2 days for patients with memantine, P = 0.062). Patients with memantine had a lower (i.e., better) CoV of stride time at follow-up assessment compared to those with CEIs (4.2 ± 2.4% versus 5.8 ± 4.2%, P = 0.010). Patients with memantine had a greater decrease in CoV of stride time compared to those with CEIs (-1.90% versus 0.93%, P = 0.010) and mixed-effects linear regressions showed that this decrease was specifically explained by memantine (P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that patients with ADRD and treated with memantine, but not those with CEIs, decreased their gait variability, and thus improved their gait safety (Trial registration number: NCT01315704).
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".