Donepezil was no better than placebo for agitation in patients with Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TherapeuticsMarch 1, 2008Donepezil was no better than placebo for agitation in patients with Alzheimer diseaseRobert van Reekum, MD, FRCPCRobert van Reekum, MD, FRCPCBaycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (R.V.R.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2008-148-2-033 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationHoward RJ, Juszczak E, Ballard CG, et al. Donepezil for the treatment of agitation in Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1382-92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17914039Clinical Impact RatingsGeriatrics: Neurology: References1 Schneider LS, Dagerman K, Insel PS. Efficacy and adverse effects of atypical antipsychotics for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14:191-210. [PMID: 16505124] Google Scholar2 van Iersel MB, Zuidema SU, Koopmans RT, Verhey FR, Olde Rikkert MG. Antipsychotics for behavioural and psychological problems in elderly people with dementia: a systematic review of adverse events. Drugs Aging. 2005;22:845-58. [PMID: 16245958] Google Scholar3 Schneider LS, Dagerman KS, Insel P. Risk of death with atypical antipsychotic drug treatment for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. JAMA. 2005;294:1934-43. [PMID: 16234500] Google Scholar4 Lee PE, Gill SS, Freedman M, et al. Atypical antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: systematic review. BMJ. 2004;329:75. [PMID: 15194601] Google Scholar5 Trinh NH, Hoblyn J, Mohanty S, Yaffe K. Efficacy of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms and functional impairment in Alzheimer disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2003;289:210-6. [PMID: 12517232] Google Scholar6 Howard R, Ballard C, O’Brien J, Burns A. Guidelines for the management of agitation in dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2001;16:714-7. [PMID: 11466751] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (R.V.R.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Current IssueMarch 1, 2008Volume 148, Issue 2Page: 33KeywordsAdverse eventsAlzheimer diseaseAntipsychoticsCaregiversCholinesterase inhibitorsDeliriumDementia with Lewy bodiesDrugsFallsGeriatricsMedical conditionsNeurologySafetyStroke ePublished: 4 March 2020 Issue Published: March 1, 2008 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".