Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Objective The effects of (-)-phenserine (phenserine) and placebo/donepezil treatment on regional cerebral metabolic rate for glucose (rCMRglc) and brain amyloid load were investigated by positron emission tomography in 20 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease in relation to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarkers, and cognitive function. Methods The first 3 months of the study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, during which 10 patients received phenserine (30 mg/day) and 10 patients the placebo. Three to 6 months was an open-label extension phase, during which the placebo group received donepezil (5 mg/day) and the phenserine group remained on phenserine. After 6 months, all patients received phenserine treatment up to 12 months. The patients underwent positron emission tomography examinations to measure rCMRglc (8F-FDG) and amyloid load (11C-PIB) at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of the treatment. Neuropsychological and biomarker data were collected at the three times of positron emission tomography imaging. Results Statistically significant effects on a composite neuropsychological test score were observed in the phenserine-treated group compared with the placebo and donepezil group at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Values of rCMRglc were significantly increased in several cortical regions after 3 months of phenserine treatment, compared with baseline, and correlated positively with cognitive function and CSF beta-amyloid 40 (Abeta40). Cortical Pittsburgh Compound B retention correlated negatively with CSF Abeta40 levels and the ratio Abeta/beta-secretase-cleaved amyloid precursor protein. In CSF, Abeta40 correlated positively with the attention domain of cognition. Interpretation Phenserine treatment was associated with an improvement in cognition and an increase in rCMRglc.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Kadir, A., Andreasen, N., Almkvist, O., Wall, A., Forsberg, A., Engler, H., et al. (2008). Effect of phenserine treatment on brain functional activity and amyloid in Alzheimer's disease. Annals of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.21345

Vancouver

Kadir A, Andreasen N, Almkvist O, Wall A, Forsberg A, Engler H, et al. Effect of phenserine treatment on brain functional activity and amyloid in Alzheimer's disease. Annals of neurology. 2008. doi:10.1002/ana.21345. PMID: 18300284.

BibTeX

@article{kadir2008-18300284,
  author  = {Kadir, A. and Andreasen, N. and Almkvist, O. and Wall, A. and Forsberg, A. and Engler, H. and Hagman, G. and Lärksäter, M. and others},
  title   = {{Effect of phenserine treatment on brain functional activity and amyloid in Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Annals of neurology},
  year    = {2008},
  doi     = {10.1002/ana.21345},
  pmid    = {18300284},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.21345}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 76/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 2 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 44 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 76 of 100. Total 76 of 100.44 of the 58 points we could judge = 76 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Annals of neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 20 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 2 / 2 Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 18300284)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 44 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100.
Total 76 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging

Also tagged “activity”

6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “activity”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →