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.

64/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

Objectives The aim of this study was to get insight into the central effects of TC-1734 (renamed AZD3480), a selective agonist at the neuronal nicotinic receptor of the alpha4beta2 subtype. Materials and methods Electroencephalography (EEG) techniques and computerized cognitive tests were performed in young, healthy male volunteers during two double-blind and placebo-controlled studies: a rising single dose crossover study (from 2 to 320 mg) and a rising repeated dose study with a parallel group design (50, 100, and 200 mg). Results In contrast to acute administration, administration of AZD3480 over 10 days produced statistically significant enhancement of several cognitive measures (attention and episodic memory) compared to placebo. Regarding EEG data, AZD3480 showed acceleration of the alpha centroid and of the alpha peak in the single-dose study. This EEG profile of the acceleration type was confirmed in the repeated dose study on both day 1 and day 10, with the greatest effect observed with the highest dose. The EEG pattern shown for AZD3480 was consistent with that previously described with other drugs known to improve attention and vigilance (including nicotine). In addition, subjects dosed with AZD3480 showed a statistically significant increase in mismatch negativity (MMN) amplitude at 50 and 200 mg while reducing MMN latency (200 mg only), suggesting an improvement of pre-attentional mechanisms. Conclusion These early data in healthy subjects provide encouragement to consider development of AZD3480 as a novel agent for the treatment of cognitive decline in the elderly, including age-associated memory impairment and/or dementia of the Alzheimer's type.

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

APA 7th

Dunbar, G., Boeijinga, P. H., Demazières, A., Cisterni, C., Kuchibhatla, R., Wesnes, K., et al. (2007). Effects of TC-1734 (AZD3480), a selective neuronal nicotinic receptor agonist, on cognitive performance and the EEG of young healthy male volunteers. Psychopharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-006-0675-x

Vancouver

Dunbar G, Boeijinga PH, Demazières A, Cisterni C, Kuchibhatla R, Wesnes K, et al. Effects of TC-1734 (AZD3480), a selective neuronal nicotinic receptor agonist, on cognitive performance and the EEG of young healthy male volunteers. Psychopharmacology. 2007. doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0675-x. PMID: 17225162.

BibTeX

@article{dunbar2007-17225162,
  author  = {Dunbar, G. and Boeijinga, P. H. and Demazières, A. and Cisterni, C. and Kuchibhatla, R. and Wesnes, K. and Luthringer, R.},
  title   = {{Effects of TC-1734 (AZD3480), a selective neuronal nicotinic receptor agonist, on cognitive performance and the EEG of young healthy male volunteers}},
  journal = {Psychopharmacology},
  year    = {2007},
  doi     = {10.1007/s00213-006-0675-x},
  pmid    = {17225162},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-006-0675-x}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results In contrast to acute administration, administration of AZD3480 over 10 days produced statistically significant enhancement of several cognitive measures (attention and episodic memory) compared to placebo.
In addition, subjects dosed with AZD3480 showed a statistically significant increase in mismatch negativity (MMN) amplitude at 50 and 200 mg while reducing MMN latency (200 mg only), suggesting an improvement of pre-attentional mechanisms.

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 64/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychopharmacology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomized / blinded	2 / 2	Randomized 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17225162)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	37 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100.
Total	64 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years

Also tagged “repurposing”

235 studies in the library carry the topic tag “repurposing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 235 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →