MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399443274 · doi:10.1186/s13195-024-01482-z

Effects of intensive lifestyle changes on the progression of mild cognitive impairment or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4399443274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dean Ornish, Catherine Madison, Miia Kivipelto, Colleen Kemp, Charles E. McCulloch, Douglas Galasko, J. Sheldon Artz, Dorene M. Rentz, Jue Lin, Kim Norman, Anne Ornish, Sarah Tranter, Nancy DeLamarter, Noel Wingers, Carra Richling, Rima Kaddurah‐Daouk, Rob Knight, Daniel McDonald, Lucas Patel, Eric Verdin, Rudolph E. Tanzi, Steven E. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s Research & Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCleveland Clinic FoundationNational Institute on AgingArthur M. Blank Family FoundationAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationMilken Family FoundationGreater Houston Community Foundation
KeywordsClinical Dementia RatingDementiaClinical Global ImpressionRandomized controlled trialMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentGeriatric psychiatryClinical trialInternal medicineDiseasePsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence links lifestyle factors with Alzheimer's disease (AD). We report the first randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine if intensive lifestyle changes may beneficially affect the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to AD. METHODS: A 1:1 multicenter randomized controlled phase 2 trial, ages 45-90 with MCI or early dementia due to AD and a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score of 18 or higher. The primary outcome measures were changes in cognition and function tests: Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog), Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), and Clinical Dementia Rating Global (CDR-G) after 20 weeks of an intensive multidomain lifestyle intervention compared to a wait-list usual care control group. ADAS-Cog, CDR-SB, and CDR-Global scales were compared using a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and CGIC was compared using Fisher's exact test. Secondary outcomes included plasma Aβ42/40 ratio, other biomarkers, and correlating lifestyle with the degree of change in these measures. RESULTS: Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. No significant differences in any measures at baseline. Only two patients withdrew. All patients had plasma Aβ42/40 ratios <0.0672 at baseline, strongly supporting AD diagnosis. After 20 weeks, significant between-group differences in the CGIC (p= 0.001), CDR-SB (p= 0.032), and CDR Global (p= 0.037) tests and borderline significance in the ADAS-Cog test (p= 0.053). CGIC, CDR Global, and ADAS-Cog showed improvement in cognition and function and CDR-SB showed significantly less progression, compared to the control group which worsened in all four measures. Aβ42/40 ratio increased in the intervention group and decreased in the control group (p = 0.003). There was a significant correlation between lifestyle and both cognitive function and the plasma Aβ42/40 ratio. The microbiome improved only in the intervention group (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive lifestyle changes may significantly improve cognition and function after 20 weeks in many patients with MCI or early dementia due to AD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Approved by Western Institutional Review Board on 12/31/2017 (#20172897) and by Institutional Review Boards of all sites. This study was registered retrospectively with clinicaltrials.gov on October 8, 2020 (NCT04606420, ID: 20172897).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s Research & TherapySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207