MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737820018 · doi:10.2147/ndt.s142839

The effects of memantine on behavioral disturbances in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis

2017· article· en· W2737820018 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilShimane UniversityDaiichi Sankyo CompanyH. Lundbeck A/SUniversity of TorontoDaiichi-SankyoDaiichi Sankyo EuropeKing's College London
KeywordsMemantineIrritabilityMedicineApathyDisinhibitionInternal medicineMeta-analysisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialEuphoriantDonepezilAnxietyPsychiatryDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Memantine is effective in the treatment of behavioral disturbances in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. It has not yet been fully determined which behavioral disturbances respond best to memantine. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of memantine vs control (placebo or usual care) for the treatment of individual behavioral disturbances (delusion, hallucination, agitation/aggression, dysphoria, anxiety/phobia, euphoria, apathy, disinhibition, irritability/lability, aberrant motor activity/activity disturbances, nighttime disturbance/diurnal rhythm disturbances, and eating disturbances). Randomized controlled studies of memantine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease were included in this study. To evaluate these outcomes, standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), based upon a random-effects model was evaluated in the meta-analysis. Results: A total of 11 studies (n=4,261; memantine vs placebo: N=4, n=1,500; memantine + cholinesterase inhibitors [M + ChEIs] vs ChEIs: N=7, n=2,761) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to control, memantine showed significant improvement in agitation/aggression (SMD =-0.11; 95% CIs =-0.20, -0.03; P =0.01; I2 =47%), delusion (SMD =-0.12; 95% CIs =-0.18, -0.06; P =0.0002; I2 =0%), disinhibition (SMD =-0.08; 95% CIs =-0.15, -0.00; P =0.04; I2 =0%), and nighttime disturbance/diurnal rhythm disturbances (SMD =-0.10; 95% CIs =-0.18, -0.02; P =0.02; I2 =36%). Memantine was also marginally superior to control in hallucination (SMD =-0.06; 95% CIs =-0.12, 0.01; P =0.07; I2 =0%) and irritability/lability (SMD =-0.09; 95% CIs =-0.19, 0.01; P =0.07; I2 =42%). Memantine is similar to control in dysphoria, anxiety/phobia, euphoria, apathy, and eating disturbance. Conclusion: The meta-analysis suggest that memantine has benefits for the treatment of most of the behavioral disturbances in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Memantine does not deteriorate negative symptoms as behavioral disturbances in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Keywords: memantine, Alzheimer’s disease, behavioral disturbances, meta-analysis

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.296 · 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