MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117324655 · doi:10.1002/alz70859_106789

Efficacy and safety of N‐acetylcysteine in patients with vascular mild cognitive impairment (vMCI): Memory and antioxidant in vMCI Exercise Intervention Trial (MOVE‐IT)

2025· article· en· W7117324655 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yejin Kang, Nathan Herrmann, Damien Gallagher, Jinghan Jenny Chen, Ethan Mah, Kate Survilla, Danielle Vieira, Sandra E. Black, Ana C. Andreazza, Alex Kiss, P. OH, Joel Ramirez, Walter Swardfager, Susan Marzolini, Krista L Lanctôt

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionIntervention (counseling)RehabilitationCognitive trainingRandomized controlled trialCognitive rehabilitation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oxidative stress (OS) is implicated in the etiology of vascular mild cognitive impairment (vMCI), a form of cognitive decline originating from cerebrovascular pathology. vMCI is characterized by early deficits in executive function and memory, with OS suspected to contribute to its development. Although aerobic exercise has been shown to improve cognitive function and oxidative balance, it can also lead to an increase in OS. We hypothesized that the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) may help mitigate this damage by replenishing glutathione levels, particularly in those undergoing exercise interventions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral NAC for improving cognitive function in vMCI patients participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program. METHOD: In this 24-week randomized clinical trial, patients with vMCI (1SD below the norm in executive function, memory, processing speed or working memory, with significant cardiovascular disease) were randomized to receive either NAC (2400mg/day) or placebo. Participants were recruited from the Toronto Rehab Institute-Cardiac rehabilitation program. Cognitive function was assessed using a 60-minute neuropsychological battery, with executive function as the primary outcome. Phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, and the Trail Making Test B were administered as part of the executive function. Z-scores for each task were computed based on published age-matched norms, and a composite z-score was calculated for overall executive function. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects models adjusting for relevant covariates. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study period. RESULT: A total of 59 participants [mean(SD) age = 67.6(7.7), male(%) = 69.5%, mean(SD) MoCA= 22.5(3.2)] were randomized. Executive function improved over time (β=0.36, 95%CI=[0.20, 0.53], p<0.001), with no significant differences between NAC (n=29) and placebo (n=30) (β= -0.04, 95%CI= [-0.28, 0.20], p=0.7) while controlling for sex, years of education, BMI, homocysteine levels, and VO2. NAC was well-tolerated, with no significant differences in the frequency or severity of AEs between groups. Common AEs included dyspepsia, nausea, and headache. Most AEs resolved post-treatment. CONCLUSION: NAC supplementation did not provide additional cognitive benefits beyond that of cardiac rehabilitation in patients with vMCI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207