MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2897987289 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.2749

F3‐03‐02: EFFECTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE, INDIVIDUALIZED, PERSON‐CENTERED MANAGEMENT (CI‐PCM) PROGRAM ON ANXIOLYTIC MEDICATION USAGE IN PERSONS WITH MODERATE‐TO‐SEVERE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

2018· article· en· W2897987289 on OpenAlexaff
‌Barry Reisberg, Yongzhao Shao, Munther Alshalabi, Mudasar Hassan, Sunnie Kenowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlprazolamClonazepamAnxiolyticMedicineRandomizationRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyInternal medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Last year we published the results of a randomized controlled trial of a Comprehensive, Individualized, Person-Centered Management Program (CI-PCM) on persons with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (Reisberg, et al., Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2017). The subject-caregiver dyads randomized to the management program (n=10) showed significant improvements globally, which were approximately 10 times those in the usual community care dyads (n=10). Herein we examined the effects of the CI-PCM intervention on anxiolytic medication usage. Subject charts (N=20), were reviewed by a physician (M.A.) who was blind to the subject group randomization assignment. Group 1 had one subject who was receiving clonazepam at baseline, (0.25 mg, 3 times daily), which was discontinued after 36 days and a second subject who received clonazepam, 0.5 mg weekly at baseline, which was discontinued after 29 days. Group 2 had 1 subject who was started on alprazolam, 0.25 mg twice weekly as necessary on an estimated day 18, subsequently increased to twice daily as needed. Total duration of alprazolam usage was an estimated 180 days. Total estimated duration of the group 1 subjects in the study was 2,112 days and of the group 2 subjects was 2,003 days. We compared anxiolytic medication usage in the 2 study groups. Procedures for these analyses are described in Table 1. Briefly, we considered time off anxiolytics in group 1 as positive, since subjects did not take, or discontinued, anxiolytics, during this period. For group 2, we considered time in which anxiolytics were added as a negative result. We then compared group outcomes. Subsequently, the group blind was broken and the detailed results are shown in Table 1 and summarized below. The difference between the groups in terms of days of anxiolytic medication usage was highly significant (the two-tailed p value < 0.0001), with less usage in subjects randomized to the management program. Since anxiolytic usage is associated with numerous negative outcomes including dependency, seizures upon withdrawal, etc. (see Table 2), the CI-PCM program in this study was associated with an important collateral health benefit in terms of decreasing anxiolytic medication usage by community physicians. Suicidal ideation Coma Visual impairment Seizures Steven-Johnson Syndrome Hepatic Failure Physiological dependence Psychological dependence Amnesia Hallucinations Hostility Psychosis Withdrawal Respiratory depression Depression Memory impairment Confusion Excitabilityl Dyspnea Withdrawal Memory impairment Impaired cognition Depression Confusion Amnesia Dyspnea Hallucinations Psychological depression Physiological depression Hostility Conclusion: The management program was associated with a very highly significant outcome in terms of the discontinuation of anxiolytic medication usage and the ostensible prevention of new anxiolytic medication prescribing by physicians.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→