Assessment of the safety and clinical efficacy of the Brainmax in therapy of non-demented patients with a mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The assessment of the clinical efficiency and safety of the drug Brainmax and its influence on the degree of functional recovery in the treatment of patients with non-dementia cognitive disorders with this drug. Material and methods. An open multicenter randomized study included 60 patients of 18—55 years with light and moderate CI, having complaints of the cognitive spectrum. They used a clinical and neurological study using generally accepted scales and tests (MoCA, MMSE, MFI-20 tests, Schulta, DSST tests and an assessment of the quality of life of SF-36). Patients were randomized in two groups comparable by age and gender. Group 1 was treated with Brainmax per os twice every day for 14 days. After 10-days rest they received same medication for another 14 days. Group 2 was treated with Brainmax per os twice every day for 14 days, without the continuation. The total duration of the study was 40 days, the assessment of their condition was carried out on the 1st day (visit 1), after 15 days (visit 2) and after 40 days (visit 3) using the indicators of the above scales and tests in comparison with the background data. Safety assessment was carried out by the presence and structure of undesirable phenomena. Results. The use of Brainmax led to a significant improvement in cognitive performance according to all generally accepted scales and tests (concentration and maintaining of attention, working memory, visual-constructive skills, volume and speed of attention speed, information processing and executive functions), as well as to the decrease severity of asthenia and improvement of the quality of life. Conclusion. Brainmax has shown a good safety profile, tolerability and clinical efficacy in the treatment of young and middle-aged patients with non-demented cognitive impairment. Significant improvement was observed both with single and double course administration of the drug, but a significantly better effect was noted after its repeated course, which reflects, among other things, the cumulative effect of the active substances of this drug and makes longer use of the drug Brainmax justified and appropriate in these categories of patients. The data obtained allow us to recommend the wider use of the drug Brainmax in clinical practice for the treatment of CI in patients of different ages, which will optimize therapy and improve the course and outcome of the disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".