An exploratory analysis of factors associated with weight change in a 16-week trial of oral vs. orally disintegrating olanzapine: the PLATYPUS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted exploratory analyses of the data from a multinational, randomised study to identify factors associated with weight change after 16 weeks of treatment with standard olanzapine tablets (SOT) or sublingual orally disintegrating olanzapine (ODO). METHODS: One hundred and forty nine outpatients who gained weight during prior SOT therapy were enrolled into the study and treated with ODO (N = 84) or SOT (N = 65). Exploratory analyses were conducted with the subset of compliant patients (ODO: n = 60; SOT: n = 47). RESULTS: The decrease in the rate of weight gain at the end of study therapy (change from baseline) was greater in the ODO group than the SOT group (-0.59 kg/week vs. -0.38 kg/week, p = 0.0246). Age was negatively associated with weight change (p = 0.0203) in both treatment groups combined: patients gained 0.7 kg less for every 10 years of age. The least squares mean weight gain was lower with ODO than SOT in male patients (0.35 kg vs. 3.04 kg, p = 0.061), but not female patients and in American patients (0.55 kg vs. 6.21 kg, p < 0.0001), but not Canadian or Mexican patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although not conclusive, these data suggest that ODO may be a reasonable treatment option for some patients who gain weight with SOT. Further research is required to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".