MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3022883018 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2006.05.2114

P4–373: Donepezil in Alzheimerdisease: Evaluating clinical meaningfulness

2006· article· en· W3022883018 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra E. Black, Kenneth Rockwood, M Bedard, David Gold, Isabelle Lussier

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonepezilMedicineChecklistPopulationClinical trialCognitionQuality of life (healthcare)NeuropsychologyDiseaseInternal medicinePhysical therapyDementiaClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard outcome measures used in clinical trials of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) often do not capture all the improvements that can be detected by clinicians or caregivers. (Winblad et al., 2001) We undertook a 24–week Canadian open–label multi–centre study to see which symptoms respond to treatment among patients starting donepezil for Alzheimer disease (AD). Patients with of mild to moderate AD (n= 101; 71 women, mean age 76.7±6.9) were assessed with the TOPS checklist, a clinical scale covering 27 symptoms identified as frequently alleviated by donepezil (Rockwood et al., 2004). Each symptom was rated at baseline for its severity by both clinicians and caregivers, using two separate 7–point Likert–type scales. For each symptom, changes from baseline were later rated separately by the clinician and the caregiver, at week 4, 12 and 24, as one of Absence; Emergence; Increase; Stability; Decrease; Cessation. Secondary outcomes included common standard scales, exploring cognition (ADAS–cog, MMSE), activities of daily living (DAD), behavioral symptoms (NPI), functions (FRS), caregiver activity survey (CAS), and the clinician's impression of change (CIBIC+). Statistical analyses were performed on the intent to treat population with last observation carried forward (LOCF). Four symptoms were reported most often: problems in remembering (97%), temporal orientation (89%), repetitiveness (85%), and cognitive activation (84%) and 8 more were identified, by both clinicians and caregivers, in ∼2/3 of patients. In 4 patients, most symptoms worsened, in 34 patients there was no change or worsening of one symptom; one or more symptoms improved without any worsening in 43 and most improved in 20. Patients with the greatest symptomatic improvement also improved most on the ADAS–Cog and the other standard measures, whereas no improvement (or decline) in each standard measure was observed in people whose symptoms did not improve or worsened. In this open–label study, donepezil treatment for 6 months was associated with symptomatic improvement in most patients with mild to moderate AD. This improvement was better detected by the TOPS checklist than by the standard scales used in regulatory studies. Symptoms indicating executive dysfunction were particularly susceptible to benefit from donepezil treatment.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.338 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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