Cholinesterase Inhibitors Slow Decline in Executive Functions, Rather than Memory, in Alzheimers Disease: A 1-Year Observational Study in the Sunnybrook Dementia Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine if there are differential treatment effects of second-generation cholinesterase inhibitors over one year, 130 patients (untreated=65, treated=65) meeting NINCDS-ADRDA criteria for mild or moderate probable AD underwent standardized cognitive testing at baseline and 12 months later at a university memory clinic. Patients were followed either prior to or after the availability of treatment and were matched on education and baseline Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). A detailed medical history evaluation was conducted. In this well matched longitudinal observational cohort study, there were no differences in the prevalence of comorbid illnesses, concomitant medication use or vascular risk factors except for a greater number of treated patients with a previous history of smoking. Separate repeated measures MANCOVAs on the MMSE, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (DRS), and its 5 subscores (attention, initiation/perseveration, conceptualization, construction and memory) (Bonferroni corrected), after covarying for the effects of smoking, and SSRI use, showed less decline over one year in the treated group in overall cognition and in all subscores of the DRS except for memory (effect sizes 0.5-0.7). Less decline was also seen in the treated group in function and in instrumental and basic activities of daily living as measured with the Disability Assessment for Dementia Scale (DAD) (effect sizes 0.4-0.8). Executive, language and visuospatial functions, rather than memory, appeared to be more amenable to stabilization over one year by cholinesterase inhibitors in AD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".