MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980764497 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.09.035

P4‐669: A MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE‐BLIND, PLACEBO‐CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL FOR EFFICACY OF ACETYL‐L‐CARNITINE IN PATIENTS WITH DEMENTIA ASSOCIATED WITH CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE

2019· article· en· W2980764497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
YoungSoon Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPlaceboMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineInternal medicineVascular dementiaRandomized controlled trialPopulationClinical trialClinical endpointDiseasePhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) is a widely used drug for various neurodegenerative diseases including dementia. The aim of the present study was to elucidate the efficacy of ALC in dementia patients with cerebrovascular disease (vascular cognitive impairment; VCI). Fifty-six patients were randomized to treatment with 500 mg ter in die ALC, or placebo in this 28-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome measure was the Korean version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-K). Following treatment with ALC, the cognitive function measured by the MoCA-K was significantly improved in the ALC-treated groups. However, other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant between ALC- and placebo-treated groups. In MoCA-K analysis, attention and language sub-items significantly favored the ALC-treated group. Compared with placebo, treatment with ALC 1,500 mg/day produced significant changes in MoCA-K in dementia patients with VCI. ALC was well tolerated in this population. Despite the study limitations, the findings suggested the potential benefits associated with the use of ALC in dementia patients with VCI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→