Efficacy and Safety of ABT-126 in Subjects with Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease on Stable Doses of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ABT-126 is a potent, selective α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist with putative procognitive effects as a monotherapy in treating Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study (NCT01549834) investigated the efficacy and safety of ABT-126 in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD who were taking stable doses of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs). METHODS: Subjects received 25 mg ABT-126 (n = 143), 75 mg ABT-126 (n = 145), or placebo (n = 146) once daily for 24 weeks. Subjects who completed the 24-week double-blind study were eligible to enroll in a 28-week open-label extension study (NCT01690195) and received 75 mg ABT-126 daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to week 24 in the 11-item total score of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale- Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). RESULTS: Neither dose of ABT-126 demonstrated significant improvement compared with placebo in the primary efficacy endpoint. However, 25 mg ABT-126 demonstrated significant improvement compared with placebo in ADAS-Cog scores at week 4 (least squares mean difference, -1.21; standard error, 0.51; p < 0.010, one-sided); 75 mg ABT-126 did not demonstrate significant improvements in ADAS-Cog scores compared with placebo at any time point. A treatment effect was not observed for any secondary efficacy measures of cognition, function, or global improvement. ABT-126 was generally well tolerated; the most common adverse events were agitation, constipation, diarrhea, fall, and headache. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the efficacy profile of ABT-126 did not warrant further development as add-on therapy to AChEIs to treat mild-to-moderate 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".