MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210612890 · doi:10.1002/alz.056048

Effect of comprehensive, individualized, person‐centered management (CI‐PCM) on psychotropic medication usage in advanced Alzheimer’s persons in a 28‐week randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W4210612890 on OpenAlexaff
Sunnie Kenowsky, Yongzhao Shao, Jia Bao, Carol Torossian, Gianna Dafflisio, Alok Vedvyas, ‌Barry Reisberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineDementiaPsychotropic medicationMemantineAlzheimer's diseasePsychiatryPhysical therapyDiseaseInternal medicineMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD) are burdensome and disturbing for caregivers and persons living with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). They are also a primary cause of institutionalization of Alzheimer’s persons. Physicians use psychotropic medications to treat the BPSD of AD. Many of these medications have deleterious consequences as evidenced in part by their black box warnings. We published results of a 28‐week, clinician‐blind, randomized, controlled trial of our CI‐PCM program in moderate‐to‐severe, community‐residing, Alzheimer’s persons receiving memantine (Reisberg…Kenowsky, Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2017). The BPSD were examined using the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease‐Frequency Weighted severity scale, which showed significant benefit in the CI‐PCM subject group at week 28 (p<0.05). Methods We examined the magnitude of usage of psychotropic medications used to treat BSPD in subjects from our 2017 study who were randomized to receive Usual Community Care (UCC) or the CI‐PCM Program. Psychotropic medications used to treat other conditions were excluded. Subjects were evaluated at baseline and weeks 4, 12 and 28. We examined the ratio of daily psychotropic medication usage in the two groups. Psychotropic medications were compared by examining the percent of the maximum daily dosage of each medication taken cumulatively throughout each study observation period from week 4 to week 28. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to analyze the difference between the two groups. Results At baseline, the group randomized to UCC consumed significantly more psychotropic medication than subjects randomized to the CIPCM program (p<0.05). Because there was a significant difference between groups at baseline, we analyzed usage in comparison with baseline (see figure 1). The UCC subjects used more psychotropic medication on a per day average relative to baseline from week 4 to week 28 than the CI‐PCM subjects (p<0.01). The total amount of psychotropic medication taken, in comparison with baseline, was significantly lower in CI‐PCM subjects from weeks 4 to 28 (p<0.0001). Conclusions CI‐PCM subjects took significantly less psychotropic medication and their BPSD symptomatology significantly improved. The CI‐PCM program is a safe, highly efficacious nonpharmacologic intervention that significantly reduces both BPSD symptomatology and psychotropic medication usage in advanced AD persons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→