Vortioxetine improves cognition in mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of vortioxetine on cognitive function in adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). This single-arm, open-label, phase II study enrolled 111 adults with MCI without depressive symptoms to receive 5-10 mg/day vortioxetine for 6 months. Main outcomes assessed: cognitive function [Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST)], disease severity [Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)], clinician-assessed improvement and safety. Mean MoCA score increased from 24.2 points (baseline) to 29.7 points (month 6), placing most subjects within the cognitively normal range (≥26 points). Compared with baseline, MoCA and DSST scores were significantly improved at months 1, 3 and 6 (P < 0.001 for all). Global CDR scores significantly improved from baseline to month 6 (mean change -0.37 points; P < 0.001), representing an improvement from very mild impairment (0.50 points) to cognitively normal status (0.13 points), mainly in CDR memory scores. At month 6, 89.6% of subjects had improved disease severity. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were reported in 9.9% (n = 11) and 2.7% (n = 3) of subjects, respectively. Vortioxetine treatment was associated with significant improvement in cognitive function and a favorable safety profile in community-dwelling older adults with MCI. Given the lack of evidence for efficacious pharmacologic interventions for MCI, our results are encouraging and warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".