Neurocognitive Outcomes from Memantine: A Pilot, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Studies interrogating therapeutics which alter the excitation-inhibition balance in the treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have reported mixed results on social and behavioral outcomes. Methods: The aim of this randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled pilot trial was to evaluate neurocognitive effects of memantine over a 24-week trial. Twenty-three children ages 6–12 years old with ASD were randomized to memantine or placebo. Primary outcomes included measures of apraxia and expressive language with evaluations at midpoint (week 12) and endpoint (week 24). Secondary outcomes included memory and adaptive behavior measures. Exploratory outcomes included changes in overall cognitive functioning and behavior (e.g., Aberrant Behavior Checklist). Results: Results suggest that memantine was well-tolerated. Dropout rates were high across groups with only 14 participants completing the 6-month trial. Memantine was not associated with improvements in apraxia and expressive language. Treatment with memantine was associated with improvements in verbal recognition memory as measured by the Narrative Memory-Recognition (NEPSY-II) ( F = 5.05, p = .03). In addition, exploratory analyses of changes in Intelligence quotient (IQ) suggest improvements on verbal IQ ( d = 1.8). Conclusions: Results suggest future studies of memantine in ASD may benefit from shifting treatment targets from social and behavioral outcomes to exploration of effects of memantine on cognition, potentially as an adjunct to learning and educational interventions. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01372449.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it