Methylphenidate hydrochloride improves cognitive function in patients with advanced cancer and hypoactive delirium: a prospective clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical improvement observed in patients with advanced cancer and hypoactive delirium after the administration of methylphenidate hydrochloride. METHODS: Fourteen patients with advanced cancer and hypoactive delirium were seen between March 1999 and August 2000 at the Palliative Care Day Hospital and the inpatient Tertiary Palliative Care Unit of Montreal General Hospital, Montreal. They were chosen for inclusion in a prospective clinical study on the basis of (1) cognitive failure documented by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), (2) sleep-wake pattern disturbances, (3) psychomotor retardation, (4) absence of delusions or hallucinations, and (5) absence of an underlying cause to explain the delirium. All patients were treated with methylphenidate, and changes in their cognitive function were measured using the MMSE. RESULTS: All 14 patients showed improvement in their cognitive function as documented by the MMSE. The median pretreatment MMSE score (maximum score 30) was 21 (mean 20.9, standard deviation [SD] 4.9), which improved to a median of 27 (mean 24.9, SD 4.7) after the first dose of methylphenidate (p < 0.001, matched, paired Wilcoxon signed rank test). One patient died before reaching a stable dose of methylphenidate. In the other 13 patients, the median MMSE score further improved to 28 (mean 27.8, SD 2.4) (p = 0.02 compared with the median MMSE score documented 1 hour after the first dose of methylphenidate). All patients showed an improvement in psychomotor activities. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoactive delirium that cannot be explained by an underlying cause (metabolic or drug-induced) in patients with advanced cancer appears to be a specific syndrome that could be improved by the administration of methylphenidate.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".