A Randomized Comparison of Aripiprazole and Risperidone for the Acute Treatment of First-Episode Schizophrenia and Related Disorders: 3-Month Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research findings are particularly important for medication choice for first-episode patients as individual prior medication response to guide treatment decisions is unavailable. We describe the first large-scale double-masked randomized comparison with first-episode patients of aripiprazole and risperidone, 2 commonly used first-episode treatment agents. One hundred ninety-eight participants aged 15-40 years with schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder or psychotic disorder Not Otherwise Specified, and who had been treated in their lifetime with antipsychotics for 2 weeks or less were randomly assigned to double-masked aripiprazole (5-30 mg/d) or risperidone (1-6 mg/d) and followed for 12 weeks. Positive symptom response rates did not differ (62.8% vs 56.8%) nor did time to response. Aripiprazole-treated participants had better negative symptom outcomes but experienced more akathisia. Body mass index change did not differ between treatments but advantages were found for aripiprazole treatment for total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, fasting glucose, and prolactin levels. Post hoc analyses suggested advantages for aripiprazole on depressed mood. Overall, if the potential for akathisia is a concern, low-dose risperidone as used in this trial maybe a preferred choice over aripiprazole. Otherwise, aripiprazole would be the preferred choice over risperidone in most situations based upon metabolic outcome advantages and some symptom advantages within the context of similar positive symptom response between medications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".