MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281484726 · doi:10.2196/38542

Use of Bacopa monnieri in the Treatment of Dementia Due to Alzheimer Disease: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2022· review· en· W4281484726 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicinal Plants and Neuroprotection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsBacopa monnieriDementiaMedicineRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryPlaceboInternal medicineAlzheimer's diseaseClinical trialDiseasePharmacologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bacopa monnieri, a herb that has been used for many centuries in India, has shown neuroprotective effects in animal and in vitro studies; human studies on patients with Alzheimer disease have been inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review was to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of B. monnieri in persons with mild, moderate, or severe dementia, or mild cognitive impairment, due to Alzheimer disease. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries (World Health Organization, Australia-New Zealand, United States, and South Africa), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. We intended to include all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared B. monnieri, its extract or active ingredients (at any dosage), with a placebo or a cholinesterase inhibitor among adults with dementia due to Alzheimer disease and in those with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease. RESULTS: Our comprehensive search yielded 5 eligible studies. A total of 3 studies used B. monnieri in combination with herbal extracts while the remaining 2 used B. monnieri extracts only. Two studies compared B. monnieri with donepezil while the others used a placebo as the control. There was considerable variation in the B. monnieri dose used (ranging between 125 mg to 500 mg twice daily) and heterogeneity in treatment duration, follow-up, and outcomes. The major outcomes were Mini-Mental State Examination scores reported in 3 trials, Cognitive subscale scores of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale in 1 study, and a battery of cognitive tests in 2 studies. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, overall, we judged all 5 studies to be at high risk of bias. While all studies reported a statistically significant difference between B. monnieri and the comparator in at least one outcome, we rated the overall quality of evidence for the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, Postgraduate Institute Memory Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Wechsler Memory Scale to be very low due to downgrading by 2 levels for high risk of bias and 1 more level for impreciseness due to small sample sizes and wide CIs. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between B. monnieri and the placebo or donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer disease based on very low certainty evidence. No major safety issues were reported in the included trials. Future randomized controlled trials should aim to recruit more participants and report clinically meaningful outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020169421; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=169421.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.234
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.234
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.187 · 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