Efficacy of Olanzapine and Risperidone in Schizophrenia: A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares the efficacy of olanzapine and risperidone for positive and negative symptoms using an 18-week, randomized, double-blind, crossover design. The hypotheses were that olanzapine would be more efficacious for treating negative symptoms, and that risperidone would be superior in treating positive symptoms. Positive and negative symptoms scores improved throughout treatment, regardless of medication type. Differences between the medications were found for negative and general psychopathology rating scales. Overall, olanzapine led to greater improvements in negative symptoms than did risperidone. When each scale was analyzed individually, greater improvements were found for olanzapine on Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) General,PANSS total, and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS)attention. A nearly significant trend favoring olanzapine was found for the Calgary Depression Scale. Several negative symptom subscales followed a nonsignificant trend toward olanzapine being more efficacious than risperidone.Thus, there was a very consistent pattern of greater efficacy for olanzapine, particularly for negative symptoms. Despite the small number of subjects, this study shows the potential of a within-subject design to elucidate differences in efficacy.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 it