Benefit and safety of antibiotics for Alzheimer’s disease: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an age-related degenerative change of the central nervous system, the cause of which remains unclear. Recent studies have found that brain inflammation caused by microbial infections may be one of the etiologies of AD, and antibiotics as novel treatments may be beneficial for delaying the development of AD. Several prospective studies have investigated the effects of different antibiotics on Alzheimer's disease. However, no systematic review or meta-analysis has evaluated the benefits and safety of antibiotics in AD patients. METHODS: This study will analyze randomized controlled trials and observational studies published from database inception to December 31, 2022, and included direct or indirect evidence. Studies will be retrieved by searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases. The outcomes of this study included the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Frontal Functioning Scale (FAB), Dysfunctional Behavior Rating Instrument (DBRI), Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) Index, and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment instrument for randomized controlled trials. A random-effect/fixed-effects model will be used to summarize the estimates of the mean difference/risk ratio using a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: This study will analyze the benefits and safety of antibiotics in patients with AD. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis will provide evidence to evaluate the benefits and safety of antibiotics in the treatment of AD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".