Comparison of efficacy and safety between domestic and imported donepezil hydrochloride tablets for Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety between domestic and imported donepezil hydrochloride tablets for mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease. Methods Clinical data of 250 patients with mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease were analyzed. The patients were randomly divided into experimental group (n=125, receiving domestic donepezil) and control group (n=125, receiving imported donepezil). The efficacy and adverse reactions between groups were analyzed by 4 aspects including cognitive ability, general impression, daily activities and behavioral and psychological symptoms before and 1, 3, 6 months after treatment. Results There was no significant difference in Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study/Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale in control group before versus 1 month after treatment, and in experimental group before versus 6 after treatment. There were no significant differences in Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scores in both groups between before and 1, 3, 6 months after treatment. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Montreal cognitive assessment (MOCA), cognitive part of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI-Q), Clinician's Interview Based Impression of Change-Plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-Plus) and Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) were improved in the two group after treatment as compared before treatment (all P 0.05). The adverse reaction rate had no difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions The efficacy and safety between equal-dose domestic and imported donepezil hydrochloride tablets are the same in treating mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease. Key words: Alzheimer's disease; Cholinesterase inhibitors; Neuropsychological tests
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".