MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236625742 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2012.11.012

Results of a follow‐up study to the randomized Alzheimer's Disease Anti‐inflammatory Prevention Trial (ADAPT)

2013· article· en· W4236625742 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthN. Bud Grossman Center for Memory Research and CareStrongMcGill UniversityUniversity of RochesterJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Institute on AgingUniversity of WashingtonSchool of Medicine, Boston University
KeywordsCelecoxibPlaceboMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineNaproxenRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial Follow-up Study (ADAPT-FS) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of naproxen and celecoxib for the primary prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD) several years after cessation of treatment in ADAPT. METHODS: ADAPT was a randomized, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial of naproxen or celecoxib vs placebo (1:1:1.5 assignment ratio) at six U.S.-based clinics. The trial enrolled 2528 people between 2001 and 2004. Treatments were discontinued in December 2004 and participants were monitored regularly until 2007. In 2010 and 2011, ADAPT-FS screened 1537 participants by telephone and, if indicated, examined them in person using standardized clinical assessments. The primary outcome was time to diagnosis of AD. Death index searches were performed for participants not located. RESULTS: Eighty-nine additional AD events were identified (24 celecoxib, 25 naproxen, and 40 placebo) yielding a total of 161 events (48 [6.6% of randomized participants] celecoxib, 43 [6.0%] naproxen, and 70 [6.5%] placebo) across ADAPT and ADAPT-FS. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing each treatment with placebo showed no overall reduction in risk of AD: HR celecoxib vs placebo, 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.50; P = .86); HR naproxen vs placebo, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.62-1.35; P = .66). There were 349 deaths (110 [15.2%] celecoxib, 96 [13.4%] naproxen, and 143 [13.2%] placebo). Risk of death was similar for the naproxen- and placebo-assigned groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76-1.28; P = .93) and slightly higher for celecoxib compared with the placebo-assigned group (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.90-1.48; P = .27). CONCLUSIONS: These results acquired during a follow-up of approximately 7 years (which included a median of less than 1.5 years of treatment) do not support the hypothesis that celecoxib or naproxen prevent AD in adults with a family history of dementia.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations109
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207