MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacotherapy for Alzheimerʼs disease and other dementias

2002· article· en· W2320773628 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonepezilDementiaMedicineDementia with Lewy bodiesPharmacotherapyDiseaseCholinesteraseRivastigmineIntensive care medicineAlzheimer's diseasePsychiatryPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of review This paper reviews recent developments in the pharmacotherapy for Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Recent findings Important developments over the past year include the publication of two large randomized controlled trials of donepezil that establish long-term efficacy and suggest disease modifying effects. Other studies have attempted to clarify cholinesterase inhibitor treatment issues such as dose response, predictors of response and cost-effectiveness. Cholinesterase inhibitor therapeutic indications can now be clearly expanded to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease and dementia with Lewy-bodies though indications for other neurodegenerative conditions should await further published data. Data on hormone replacement, antiinflammatory and antioxidant therapy still require clarification. While studies suggest that cholinesterase inhibitors provide significant benefit for treating behavioural disturbances in dementia, recently published studies of valproate and antidepressants were disappointing. Summary Significant progress in clarifying the use, indications and long-term benefits of cholinesterase inhibitors has been made. More studies on other cognitive enhancers, prophylactic therapy, and treatment of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia are still required.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207