MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2497553043 · doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1449-3

A randomised controlled trial of calcium channel blockade (CCB) with Amlodipine For the treatment oF subcortical ischaEmic vasCular demenTia (AFFECT): study protocol

2016· article· en· W2497553043 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Caroline Greenan, Lynn Murphy, Ly‐Mee Yu, Patrick G. Kehoe, Elizabeth Coulthard, Philip M. Bath, Robert Stewart, Rob Jones, Anne Corbett, Alan Thomas, Peter Connelly, Frank Arrojo, Rachel Canning, Sylvia Wallach, Catherine Henderson, Bernadette McGuinness, Clive Holmes, Martín Knapp, Clive Ballard, Peter Passmore

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSt. George's, University of LondonUniversity of LeicesterQueen's UniversityOxford Health NHS Foundation TrustCardiff UniversityKing's College LondonNHS Greater Glasgow and ClydeKing's Health PartnersNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustAlzheimer's SocietyBritish Heart FoundationUniversity of SouthamptonUniversity Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsAmlodipineMedicineDementiaVascular dementiaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPhysical therapyInternal medicineBlood pressureDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vascular dementia is the second most common cause of dementia affecting over seven million people worldwide, yet there are no licensed treatments. There is an urgent need for a clinical trial in this patient group. Subcortical ischaemic vascular dementia is the most common variant of vascular dementia. This randomised trial will investigate whether use of calcium channel blockade with amlodipine, a commonly used agent, can provide the first evidence-based pharmacological treatment for subcortical ischaemic vascular dementia. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomised controlled trial of calcium channel blockade with Amlodipine For the treatment oF subcortical ischaEmic vasCular demenTia (AFFECT) to test the hypothesis that treatment with amlodipine can improve outcomes for these patients in a phase IIb, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. The primary outcome is the change from baseline to 12 months in the Vascular Dementia Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (VADAS-cog). Secondary outcomes include cognitive function, executive function, clinical global impression of change, change in blood pressure, quantitative evaluation of lesion accrual based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, non-cognitive dementia symptoms, care-giver burden and care-giver health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and institutionalisation. A total of 588 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either amlodipine or placebo, recruited from sites across the UK and enrolled in the trial for 104 weeks. DISCUSSION: There are no treatments licensed for vascular dementia. The most common subtype is subcortical ischaemic vascular dementia (SIVD). This study is designed to investigate whether amlodipine can produce benefits compared to placebo in established SIVD. It is estimated that the numbers of people with VaD and SIVD will increase globally in the future and the results of this study should inform important treatment decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31208535 . Registered on 7 March 2014.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.009

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207