Effect of galantamine on verbal repetition in AD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand how commonly diminution of verbal repetition was a goal of treatment in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), how commonly that goal was achieved, whether goal attainment might be attributable to galantamine treatment, and whether change in verbal repetition is a marker of the overall treatment response. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Video-Imaging Synthesis of Treating Alzheimer's Disease study, a 4-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of galantamine in 130 community-dwelling patients with mild to moderate AD. The primary outcome was Goal Attainment Scaling, in which individualized problems identified by patients/caregivers and treating physicians were assessed bimonthly. RESULTS: Reduction of verbal repetition was set as a treatment goal in 44% (n = 57) of randomized patients. More patients/caregivers (32%) set repetition goals than did physicians (18%). After 4 months, more galantamine-treated patients showed diminution of verbal repetition (58%) than did placebo-treated patients (24%; p < 0.01). Reduction of verbal repetition correlated with improvement in clinical measures, but not in standardized ones. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction of verbal repetition is a common goal of Alzheimer disease treatment. After 4 months, patients treated with galantamine were more likely to experience a reduction of verbal repetition than those treated with placebo. Diminution of verbal repetition was associated with other improvements, suggesting it might be a clinical marker of a positive treatment response.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".