The “delayed onset” of antipsychotic action — an idea whose time has come and gone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For years, it has been known that the "onset" of the antipsychotic response is "delayed," and this notion is expressed in many major textbooks, informs clinical decisions and has even led to the search for biological markers responsible for this delayed onset. But is the onset of antipsychotic action really delayed? In this review, we bring together data from several recent studies of antipsychotic drugs that show that the onset of the antipsychotic effect is within the first day; the effect is distinguishable from behavioural sedation; is specific to antipsychotic drugs; is seen with oral and parenteral preparations; and is seen with typical and atypical antipsychotics. More anti- "psychotic" improvement is seen within the first 2 weeks than in any other 2-week period thereafter, and more improvement is seen in the first month than in the rest of the year of follow-up. This body of data convincingly refutes the notion of "delay" in the onset of antipsychotic action and suggests an "early" onset instead. The implications of this finding for clinical decision-making, mechanisms of antipsychotic action and drug discovery are discussed.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".