Efficacy and safety of the compound Chinese medicine SaiLuoTong in vascular dementia: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction No licensed medications are available to treat vascular dementia (VaD). Methods Patients were randomly assigned to experimental groups (SaiLuoTong [SLT] 360 or 240 mg for groups A and B for 52 weeks, respectively) or placebo group (SLT 360 mg and 240 mg for group C only from weeks 27 to 52, respectively). Results Three hundred twenty‐five patients were included in final analysis. At week 26, the difference in VaD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale scores was 2.67 (95% confidence interval, 1.54 to 3.81) for groups A versus C, and 2.48 (1.34 to 3.62) for groups B versus C (both P < .0001). However, at week 52, no difference was observed among the groups on the VaD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale ( P = .062) because of the emerging efficacy of SLT in placebo beginning at week 27. Discussion This study suggests that SLT is effective for treatment of VaD, and this compound Chinese medicine may represent a better choice to treat VaD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".