Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Clinical Trial of Donepezil in Vascular Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with vascular dementia (VaD) fulfilling National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Association Internationale pour la Recherche et l'Enseignement en Neurosciences criteria. METHODS: This international, multicenter, 24-week trial was conducted from March 2003 to August 2005. Patients (N=974; mean age, 73.0 years) with probable or possible VaD were randomized 2:1 to receive donepezil 5 mg/d or placebo. Coprimary outcome measures were scores on the Vascular-Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale and Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change, plus carer interview. Analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat population with the last-observation-carried-forward method. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, donepezil-treated patients showed significant improvement from baseline to end point on the Vascular-Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (least-squares mean difference, -1.156; 95% CI, -1.98 to -0.33; P<0.01) but not on the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change, plus carer interview. Patients with hippocampal atrophy who were treated with donepezil demonstrated stable cognition versus a decline in the placebo-treated group; in those without atrophy, cognition improved with donepezil versus relative stability with placebo. Results on secondary efficacy measures were inconsistent. The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. Eleven deaths occurred in the donepezil group (1.7%), similar to rates previously reported for donepezil trials in VaD, whereas no deaths occurred in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with donepezil 5 mg/d demonstrated significant improvement in cognitive, but not global, function. Donepezil was relatively well tolerated; adverse events were consistent with current labeling. Mortality in the placebo group was unexpectedly low. The differential treatment response of VaD patients by hippocampal size suggests that hippocampal imaging warrants further investigation for understanding VaD.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".