MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W115573644

Topiramate-induced weight loss in schizophrenia: a retrospective case series study.

2007· article· en· W115573644 on OpenAlexaffabout
E Lévy, Catherine Agbokou, Florian Ferreri, Guy Chouinard, Howard C. Margolese

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopiramateMedicineSchizoaffective disorderOverweightBody mass indexWeight lossSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PediatricsRetrospective cohort studyWeight gainAntipsychoticObesityPsychiatryInternal medicineBody weightPsychosisEpilepsy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Atypical antipsychotics have been associated with weight gain. This study examines the efficacy of adjunctive topiramate in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with antipsychotic-induced weight gain. METHODS: A 2-year retrospective case analysis was performed in all 300 patients of the outpatient Special Follow-up Clinic for chronic schizophrenia and related psychoses at the Allan Memorial Institute, McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, Canada), a tertiary care University teaching hospital. RESULTS: 10 patients met study inclusion criteria. Mean daily topiramate dose was 197.5 mg (A+/-77) (range, 125-400 mg). Topiramate produced continued weight loss throughout the study duration without tolerance. Patients treated for 6 months and more had significantly higher Body Mass Index (BMI) differences than those treated for shorter durations (BMI-d6 months=-4.7A+/-2.4; BMI-d2 months=-3.2A+/-2.3; P=0.015). BMI changes were similar across genders. CONCLUSION: This study supports topiramate use to target weight loss in stable overweight schizophrenic patients as a potential therapy that requires further investigation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentFrench-language works237,207