MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885800496 · doi:10.1111/cns.13035

A review of clinical treatment considerations of donepezil in severe Alzheimer's disease

2018· review· en· W2885800496 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aida Adlimoghaddam, Melanie Neuendorff, Banibrata Roy, Benedict C. Albensi

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersAlzheimer Society of ManitobaResearch Manitoba
KeywordsDonepezilMedicineAdverse effectPlaceboDiseaseCholinesteraseClinical trialRivastigmineAlzheimer's diseaseDementiaInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that affects over 45 million people worldwide. Patients with severe AD require help with daily activities and show severe memory impairment. Currently, donepezil is one of two drugs approved by FDA and Health Canada for the treatment of severe AD (MMSE score <10). It is prescribed as 5 or 10 mg/d and an FDA-approved 23-mg/d dose. METHOD: This review will discuss risks and benefits of donepezil at these doses in severe AD. Articles were identified using PubMed using the MeSH terms "donepezil" AND "Alzheimer Disease" AND "severe." Three double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized studies, one post hoc analysis, and one subgroup analysis were selected. RESULTS: Donepezil was found to benefit patients in cognition and global functioning. The most consistent improvement was in severe impairment battery (SIB) scores. However, more patients treated with high dosage of donepezil discontinued their treatment due to various adverse events (AEs). CONCLUSION: Clinicians must weigh benefits against adverse events when determining the course of therapy, as recommendations for cholinesterase inhibitors in advanced AD remain unclear and vary with different guidelines.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.348
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations147
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS Neuroscience & TherapeuticsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207