Clomipramine Versus Haloperidol in the Treatment of Autistic Disorder: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clomipramine, haloperidol, and placebo were compared with baseline in the treatment of autism, and overall outcome, specific symptoms, and side effects were examined. It was hypothesized that clomipramine would be better tolerated than haloperidol and prove superior on a measure of stereotypy. Individuals with a DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder (mean age, 16.3 years; range, 10-36 years) were randomly assigned, by using a Latin square design, to the following 7-week trials: placebo, clomipramine (mean daily dose, 128.4 mg; range, 100-150 mg), or haloperidol (mean daily dose, 1.3 mg; range, 1-1.5 mg). Data on 36 subjects were analyzed and taken together; the results favored haloperidol. In those patients who were able to complete a full therapeutic trial, clomipramine proved comparable to haloperidol in terms of improvement compared with baseline. However, significantly fewer individuals receiving clomipramine versus haloperidol were able to complete the trial (37.5% vs. 69.7%, respectively) for reasons related to both side effects and efficacy or behavior problems. In the intent-to-treat sample, which is perhaps more clinically relevant, only haloperidol proved superior to baseline on a global measure of autistic symptom severity, as well as specific measures for irritability and hyperactivity. Clomipramine did not seem more effective on a measure of stereotypy, nor was it better tolerated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".