MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964042506 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.5.3.85

Review: amisulpride is effective and safe for schizophrenia

2002· letter· en· W1964042506 on OpenAlexaff
Shitij Kapur

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmisulprideMedicineBrief Psychiatric Rating ScalePlaceboSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Internal medicineRandomized controlled trialAntipsychoticWeb of scienceGastroenterologyPsychiatryMeta-analysisPsychosisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207