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 OpenAlexfundno aff
Taro Kishi, Shinji Matsunaga, Nakao Iwata

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.048
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations52
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychiatric Disease and TreatmentSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207