NeuroEPO plus (NeuralCIM <sup>®</sup> ) in Alzheimer's disease: Post-trial observational follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundNeuroEPO plus is a recombinant erythropoietin with a sialic acid content like that produced by astrocytes, lacking the hematopoietic activity of conventional erythropoietin.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with neuroEPO plus.MethodsIt was a post-trial observational follow-up study with four groups, NE: subjects who continued treatment with neuroEPO plus after trial, PB-NE: subjects who received a placebo during the trial and then receive neuroEPO plus, NE-CTRL: subjects who received neuroEPO plus during the trial and then interrupted treatment and CTRL: subjects who were never treated. NeuroEPO plus was administrated three times a week nasally. The primary outcome was changed from baseline in the score on the11-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog11) at 96 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Global Deterioration Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, and Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale.ResultsThe adjusted median change from baseline in the ADAS-Cog11 score at 96 weeks was -6.0 in NE group and 11.0 in the CTRL group (difference, 21.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.6-27.4; p = 0.000), -1.0 in the PB-NE (difference, 15.4; 95% CI, 9.0-21.8; p = 0.000) and 4.0 in the NE-CTRL (difference, 8.3; 95% CI, 1.4-15.2; p = 0.011). The results for secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences.ConclusionsSubjects who continued or started treatment with neuroEPO plus stabilized or slowed down the progression of the disease. These results and the method of drug administration, make neuroEPO plus an attractive option to consider for Alzheimer's disease patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".