Safety and Efficacy of Memantine in Improving Cognitive Function of Patients with Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of cognitive impairment among patients with epilepsy is about 70%. There is still no approved medication for the treatment of this problem. Objectives: The present study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of memantine in improving the cognitive function of patients with epilepsy. Materials & Methods: This is a pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial, conducted in a hospital in Tehran, Iran during 2018-2019. Participants were randomly allocated to receive memantine (5 mg/day in the first eight weeks and 10 mg/day in the second eight weeks) or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Participants underwent the mini-mental state examination (MMSE), montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), and frontal assessment battery (FAB) before and after the intervention. The primary and secondary measures were safety and change in the cognitive test scores, respectively. Results: Out of 53 allocated participants, 33 completed the study. Drug intolerance including headache, somnolence, and dizziness was not significantly different between the two groups. The Intention-to-Treat analyses demonstrated no significant change in MoCA and FAB scores between the two groups after the intervention, but a significant improvement in the MMSE score of the memantine group (P=0.047) was observed. After controlling confounding factors, there was no significant difference in scores of any cognitive tests between the two groups. Conclusion: Memantine is a safe drug for patients with epilepsy, but it may not exert a beneficial effect on the cognitive function of these patients.
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".