The potential role of appetite in predicting weight changes during treatment with olanzapine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinically significant weight gain has been reported during treatment with atypical antipsychotics. It has been suggested that weight changes in patients treated with olanzapine may be associated with increased appetite. METHODS: Data were used from adult patients for whom both appetite and weight data were available from 4 prospective, 12- to 24-week clinical trials. Patients' appetites were assessed with Eating Behavior Assessment (EBA, Study 1), Platypus Appetite Rating Scale (PARS, Study 2), Eating Inventory (EI, Study 3), Food Craving Inventory (FCI, Study 3), and Eating Attitude Scale (EAS, Study 4). RESULTS: In Studies 1 (EBA) and 4 (EAS), patients who reported overall score increases on appetite scales, indicating an increase in appetite, experienced the greatest overall weight gains. However, in Studies 2 (PARS) and 3 (EI, FCI), patients who reported overall score increases on appetite scales did not experience greater weight changes than patients not reporting score increases. Early weight changes (2-4 weeks) were more positively correlated with overall weight changes than early or overall score changes on any utilized appetite assessment scale. No additional information was gained by adding early appetite change to early weight change in correlation to overall weight change. CONCLUSIONS: Early weight changes may be a more useful predictor for long-term weight changes than early score changes on appetite assessment scales. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This report represents secondary analyses of 4 clinical studies. Studies 1, 2, and 3 were registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home, under NCT00190749, NCT00303602, and NCT00401973, respectively. Study 4 predates the registration requirements for observational studies that are not classified as category 1 observational studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".