Methylphenidate for Mild Cognitive Impairment: An Exploratory 3-Day, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of methylphenidate (MPH) for cognitive function in older patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: Male and female subjects aged 65 years and older with a clinical diagnosis MCI were included in an exploratory randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible subjects were assigned to either treatment with immediate-release MPH or placebo. The active compound was administered in an increasing-dose stepwise fashion, namely 10 mg MPH on day 1, 20 mg on day 2, and 30 mg on day 3. Subjects remained under observation for 4 h following drug administration and were monitored for changes in blood pressure and for adverse events. Cognitive outcome measures included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Neurotrax Mindstreams computerized cognitive assessment battery. Results: Of 17 subjects enrolled, 15 subjects completed the study, 7 in the active MPH group and 8 in the placebo group. The average age of the participants was 76.1 ± 6.6 years and 10 (66.7%) were men. Following the final dose a significant benefit on memory (predominantly non-verbal memory) was found in the MPH group. While 12 adverse events were reported, they were all rated as mild to moderate. Conclusions: Our finding of modest beneficial effects of MPH on memory tests in older subjects with MCI in this exploratory study is of interest and should be investigated in further studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".