Data from: INTREPAD: a randomized trial of naproxen to slow progress of presymptomatic Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-dose naproxen for prevention of progression in pre-symptomatic AD among cognitively intact persons at-risk. Methods: INTREPAD, a two-year double-masked pharmaco-prevention trial, enrolled 195 AD family history-positive elderly (mean age 63 years) screened carefully to exclude cognitive disorder. These were randomized 1:1 to naproxen sodium 220mg twice-daily or placebo. Multimodal imaging, neurosensory, cognitive and (in ~50%) CSF biomarker evaluations were performed at Baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. A modified intent-to-treat analysis considered 160 participants who remained on-treatment through their first follow-up examination. The primary outcome was rate of change in a multimodal composite pre-symptomatic Alzheimer Progression Score (APS). Results: Safety: Naproxen-treated individuals showed a clear excess of adverse events. Efficacy: Among treatment groups combined, the APS increased by 0.101 points/year (S.E = 0.014; P < 10-5), but rate of change showed little difference by treatment assignment (0.017 points/year). The treatment-related slope ratio of 1.10 (95% Confidence Interval 0.588–2.04) suggested that naproxen does not reduce the rate of APS progression by more than 41%. Secondary analyses revealed no notable treatment effects on individual CSF, cognitive, or neurosensory biomarker indicators of progressive pre-symptomatic AD. Conclusions: In cognitively intact individuals at-risk, sustained treatment with naproxen sodium 220 mg twice-daily increases frequency of adverse health effects but does not reduce apparent progression of pre-symptomatic AD. Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that, for people who are cognitively intact, low-dose naproxen does not significantly reduce progression of a composite indicator of pre-symptomatic AD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".