The use of Mexidol in patients with mild (moderate) cognitive impairment: results of a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To conduct a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of Mexidol therapy in patients with chronic brain ischemia (CBI) and cognitive disorders (CD). Material and methods. This meta-analysis included the results of studies on the effectiveness of Mexidol in patients with CD measured with Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA). The pooled effect assessment included all publications from independent clinical trials that provided efficacy data on the MoCA scale with a level of detail sufficient for further mathematical analysis. The main result of the meta-analysis was obtained for the final values of the effectiveness indicator in the Mexidol groups compared with the basic therapy groups. Data from 10 prospective randomized trials containing information on the final scores on the MoCA scale after therapy was analyzed Results. The meta-analysis of ten prospective clinical studies of the effectiveness of Mexidol against the background of basic therapy in patients with CCI and CD was carried out. The total number of patients taking Mexidol was 482; the comparison group consisted of 455 patients. According to the results of a statistical model of random effects, the effect size was 2.06; 95% confidence interval for the difference in effectiveness between the groups of the study drug and the control groups [0.98; 3.14] (p=0.0002). Conclusion. A statistically significant and clinically significant improvement in the cognitive functions of patients with CBI, was demonstrated after treatment with Mexidol.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".