Effect of donepezil and memantine on improvement of cognitive function in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy(
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment is a common complication of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of donepezil and memantine on improving the cognitive function of patients with TLE. Materials and Methods: In a clinical trial study, 70 patients with TLE were divided into two groups of 35 each: 10 mg doses of donepezil (first group) and memantine (second group) were applied for 16 weeks. The level of cognitive function of patients in both groups before and after treatment was determined using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Results: The mean score of MoCA before and after intervention was 23.55 ± 3.67 and 26.09 ± 2.5, respectively, in the group treated with memantine, and the mean score of intervention was significantly improved (P < 0.001). In the group treated with donepezil, the score before and after the operation was 23.87 ± 3.18 and 24.35 ± 2.17, respectively, and no significant difference was observed in this group (P = 0.38). Conclusion: Hence, memantine was better than donepezil in the improvement of cognitive impairment in patients with TLE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".