MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heterogeneity of Treatment Response to Citalopram for Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease With Aggression or Agitation: The CitAD Randomized Clinical Trial

2016· article· en· W2236030964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAvid RadiopharmaceuticalsGenentechNational Institutes of HealthLundbeck CanadaNational Football League Players AssociationGrifolsServierEisaiAstellas PharmaPfizerBiogenCentre for Addiction and Mental Health FoundationFondation Brain CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of PennsylvaniaAstraZenecaInternational Parkinson and Movement Disorder SocietyGlaxoSmithKlineCHDI FoundationU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's ResearchTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesH. Lundbeck A/SU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsCitalopramPlaceboRandomized controlled trialMedicineInternal medicineAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological treatments for agitation and aggression in patients with Alzheimer's disease have shown limited efficacy. The authors assessed the heterogeneity of response to citalopram in the Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer Disease (CitAD) study to identify individuals who may be helped or harmed. METHOD: In this double-blind parallel-group multicenter trial of 186 patients with Alzheimer's disease and clinically significant agitation, participants were randomly assigned to receive citalopram or placebo for 9 weeks, with the dosage titrated to 30 mg/day over the first 3 weeks. Five planned potential predictors of treatment outcome were assessed, along with six additional predictors. The authors then used a two-stage multivariate method to select the most likely predictors; grouped participants into 10 subgroups by their index scores; and estimated the citalopram treatment effect for each. RESULTS: Five covariates were likely predictors, and treatment effect was heterogeneous across the subgroups. Patients for whom citalopram was more effective were more likely to be outpatients, have the least cognitive impairment, have moderate agitation, and be within the middle age range (76-82 years). Patients for whom placebo was more effective were more likely to be in long-term care, have more severe cognitive impairment, have more severe agitation, and be treated with lorazepam. CONCLUSIONS: Considering several covariates together allowed the identification of responders. Those with moderate agitation and with lower levels of cognitive impairment were more likely to benefit from citalopram, and those with more severe agitation and greater cognitive impairment were at greater risk for adverse responses. Considering the dosages used and the association of citalopram with cardiac QT prolongation, use of this agent to treat agitation may be limited to a subgroup of people with dementia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.379 · 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