MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159575804 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100014815

Persistence with Cholinesterase Inhibitor Treatment in Alzheimer's Disease

2013· letter· en· W2159575804 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Fadi Massoud

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)CholinesteraseMedicineDiseaseNeurosciencePsychologyPharmacologyInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) are approved in Canada for the symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD): donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine.This class of drugs provides modest improvement of some symptoms of the disease but it does not alter its course 1 .The fourth Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) concluded that the three ChEI demonstrated comparable efficacy for mild to severe AD, and that a trial of one of these medications should be proposed for most patients with AD 2 .As ChEI are relatively costly and their clinical benefits are mild, persistence with treatment has been an issue since their arrival on the Canadian market.In most provinces, these medications are reimbursed according to very specific criteria.For example, in Quebec, reimbursement of these medications is conditional on a clear diagnosis, a general rating of disease severity in five clinical domains, and specific cut-offs on the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE).Upon renewing ChEI prescription, reimbursement is granted if the patient improves, stabilises, or does not deteriorate significantly in several clinical domains and on the MMSE.These criteria, which are based on the results of clinical trials with ChEI, are far from perfect, but they do serve as a general guide to their use in clinical practice.In clinical trials, patients are followed very closely and their symptoms are monitored on a regular basis.This will tend to reinforce persistence to treatment, but may be difficult to reproduce in real-life clinical practice.In that respect, the setting of clinical trials is "artificial".Nevertheless, the rate of withdrawal from ChEI after six months of treatment has varied between 20% and 30% in clinical trials, depending on the molecule used and the method of administration (immediate release vs extended release, oral vs transdermal, etc.) [3][4][5] .There are few clinical trials beyond six month duration, and they have usually demonstrated similar withdrawal rates.In this issue of the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, Saleh et al investigated persistence to ChEI in a small group of patients in a memory clinic in rural Saskatchewan 6 .Several factors were examined including socio-demographic, cognitive, functional and behavioural measures.The level of education was the only factor associated with discontinuation of ChEI.Out of the 63 patients initially started on ChEI, 19 discontinued treatment, and those with fewer years of formal education had higher rates of drug discontinuation at six months.Authors explain this finding by speculating that patients with more years of formal education were better able to understand the importance of treatment persistence and dealing with its side effects.The main limitation of this study is its modest sample size, meaning that type II error cannot be excluded.Also, it is unclear why such a small proportion of all patients evaluated (318) was included in the study.We assume that some individuals referred to this clinic were already on ChEI, and they were excluded, but this cannot be the case for most patients.Nevertheless, this study population represents a "real life"

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207