Actigraphic measurement of the effects of single-dose haloperidol and olanzapine on spontaneous motor activity in normal subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively examine the effects of haloperidol and olanzapine on spontaneous motor activity in normal subjects. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled medication study. PARTICIPANTS: Normal volunteers (n = 30). INTERVENTIONS: Subjects received 1 dose of either haloperidol 2 mg (n = 9), olanzapine 10 mg (n = 10) or placebo (n = 10) and were admitted to hospital for the next 24 hours. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects wore an actigraphic monitor, which recorded movement in 15-second epochs. The Simpson-Angus Extrapyramidal Side Effect Scale (SAS) and the Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) were administered before and 7 and 24 hours after medication was given. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, total motor activity was decreased by 41% with olanzapine (p = 0.004) and by 12% with haloperidol (NS). There were significantly more epochs with zero movement with olanzapine than with haloperidol or placebo. For non-zero epochs, the mean activity count and the distribution of activity counts did not differ significantly among groups. There were no positive findings on the SAS or the BAS. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine decreased total motor activity by increasing the amount of time during which subjects were immobile, rather than by affecting the magnitude of movement during periods in which there was activity. This effect occurred at a dose of olanzapine low enough not to cause clinically observed extrapyramidal side effects. Our results suggest that actigraphy is useful as a sensitive, noninvasive tool for measuring the effect of antipsychotics on spontaneous motor activity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".