Topiramate Augmentation in Clozapine-Treated Patients With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clozapine represents the treatment of choice for refractory psychosis, although a significant number of individuals demonstrate suboptimal response to it as well, leading to clozapine augmentation strategies. A variety of agents have been investigated in this regard, including mood stabilizers, such as anticonvulsants. Within this group of medications, topiramate is unique in that it is associated with weight loss, making it an attractive option because of clozapine's notable risk for associated metabolic disturbance. A 12-week naturalistic, open study was carried out to examine the potential benefits of topiramate in clozapine-treated individuals with schizophrenia demonstrating a suboptimal clinical response. We were specifically interested in clinical symptoms, changes in metabolic parameters, and tolerability. A total of 20 subjects were enrolled, and 16 completed the study, including 5 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Topiramate augmentation led to a 14% improvement in total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores (P = 0.0003), a 2.5% decrease in body weight (P = 0.015), and was generally well tolerated, paraesthesia being the most common side effect. These findings support topiramate as a viable augmentation strategy in clozapine partial responders, with evidence of both clinical and metabolic benefits.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".