Rasagiline for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: A placebo‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study's aims were to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rasagiline, a selective monoamine oxidase inhibitor B, for PD patients with mild cognitive impairment. METHODS: Patients on stable dopaminergic therapy were randomized to adjunct rasagiline 1 mg/day or placebo in this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multisite study. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 24 on the Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's Disease-Cognition total score. Key secondary measures included changes in cognition, activities of daily living, motor scores, and Clinical Global Impression of Change, as well as safety and tolerability measures. RESULTS: Of the 170 patients randomized, 151 (88.2%) completed the study. Change in Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's Disease-Cognition scores were not significantly different in the rasagiline and placebo groups (adjusted mean: 1.6 [standard error {SE} = 0.5] vs. 0.8 [SE = 0.5] points; LS means difference = 0.8; 95% confidence interval: -0.48, 2.05; P = 0.22). There were no between-group differences in change in the MoCA (p=0.84) or Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire (P = 0.48) scores or in the distribution of Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change modified for mild cognitive impairment (P = 0.1). Changes in motor (UPDRS part III; P = 0.02) and activities of daily living (UPDRS part II; P < 0.001) scores favored rasagiline. Rasagiline was well tolerated; the most common adverse events in both groups were falls and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: Rasagiline treatment in PD patients with mild cognitive impairment was not associated with cognitive improvement. Rasagiline did not worsen cognition, improved motor symptoms and activities of daily living, and was well tolerated in elderly cognitively impaired patients. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".