Rivastigmine in Parkinson's Disease Dementia with Orthostatic Hypotension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the cognitive benefit of rivastigmine is affected by the presence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) in patients with Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD). METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis on 1,047 patients with PDD from 2 randomized controlled trials comparing rivastigmine versus placebo at week 24 (n = 501) and rivastigmine patch versus capsule at week 76 (n = 546). A drop ≥ 20 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure (SBP) or ≥ 10 in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) upon standing classified subjects as OH positive (OH+); otherwise, OH negative (OH-). The primary end point was the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 24 and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) at week 76, using intention-to-treat with retrieved dropout at week 24 and observed cases at week 76, consistent with the original analyses. RESULTS: Overall safety was comparable between OH+ (n = 288, 27.5%) and OH- (n = 730, 69.7%), except for higher frequency of syncope (9.2%) in the OH+ placebo arm. The placebo-adjusted effect of rivastigmine on ADAS-Cog at week 24 was 5.6 ± 1.2 for OH+ and 1.9 ± 0.9 in OH- (p = 0.0165). Among subjects with OH, the MDRS change from baseline at week 76 was higher for rivastigmine capsules versus patch (10.6 ± 2.9 vs -1.5 ± 3.0, p = 0.031). The overall prevalence of OH was lower for rivastigmine than placebo at week 24 (28.3% vs 44.6%, p = 0.0476). INTERPRETATION: The cognitive benefit from rivastigmine is larger in patients with PDD with OH, possibly mediated by a direct antihypotensive effect. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:91-98.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".