Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leucht S, Pitschel-Walz G, Engel RR, et al. Amisulpride, an unusual “atypical” antipsychotic: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Psychiatry2002 Feb; 159 : 180 –90 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients with schizophrenia, is amisulpride effective and safe for treating symptoms? Studies were identified by searching Medline and Current Contents (to April 2000), scanning reference lists, and contacting the manufacturer of amisulpride. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials that compared amisulpride with conventional antipsychotics and/or placebo in patients with schizophrenia. Data were extracted on patients, drug regimens, study characteristics, and outcomes (including mean change from baseline on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] and the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms; extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) [number of patients needing ≥1 dose of antiparkinsonian medication]; and dropouts). 18 studies (2214 patients) met the selection criteria. Study duration ranged from 3 weeks … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DLeucht%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%26rft.volume%253D159%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D180%26rft.epage%253D190%26rft.atitle%253DAmisulpride%252C%2Ban%2BUnusual%2B%2522%2522Atypical%2522%2522%2BAntipsychotic%253A%2BA%2BMeta-Analysis%2Bof%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrials%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1176%252Fappi.ajp.159.2.180%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11823257%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.ajp.159.2.180&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11823257&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F5%2F3%2F85.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000173727500002&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".