Effect of donepezil on emergence of apathy in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether donepezil treatment (10 mg/day over 24 weeks) is associated with delayed emergence of apathy in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to explore relationships between donepezil's effects on apathy and other Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)-measured behavioural symptoms. METHODS: Two randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studies that met prespecified criteria and were sufficiently similar to allow data pooling were derived from all donepezil AD clinical trials. Patients scoring from 10 to 26 on baseline Mini-Mental Status Examination were included. A clinical milestone for apathy and other NPI items was defined as the first emergence of a composite score (frequency × severity) ≥ 3. Differences in time to event (i.e. milestone) between donepezil- and placebo-treated groups were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Shift tables were constructed to evaluate clinical milestone status for apathy and other NPI items at baseline and endpoint, and were analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline status. RESULTS: Of all NPI items, apathy had the highest proportion of subjects scoring ≥ 3 at baseline. Donepezil was superior to placebo on both apathy milestone analyses (time-to-event log-rank test and shift table CMH test, p = 0.01). Aberrant motor behaviour demonstrated similar benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Donepezil treatment appears to have resulted in a significant reduction over 6 months of the emergence of apathy in patients with AD. These data suggest that a prospective clinical trial in patients with early AD that includes apathy as a primary outcome measure may be warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".