Combining Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment for assessing the clinical efficacy of cholinesterase inhibitors in mild Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current drugs for Alzheimer's Disease (AD), such as cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), exert only symptomatic activity. Different psychometric tools are needed to assess cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions during pharmacological treatment. In this pilot study, we monitored 33 mild-AD patients treated with ChEIs. Specifically, we evaluated the effects of 6 months (Group 1 = 17 patients) and 9 months (Group 2 = 16 patients) of ChEIs administration on cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), while depressive symptoms were measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). After 6 months (Group 1), a significant decrease in MoCA performance was detected. After 9 months (Group 2), a significant decrease in MMSE, MoCA, and FAB performance was observed. ChEIs did not modify depressive symptoms. Overall, our data suggest MoCA is a potentially useful tool for evaluating the effectiveness of ChEIs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".