Open‐label flexible‐dose pilot study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of aripiprazole in patients with psychosis associated with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychosis affects at least 5% to 8% of medication-treated patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD). Treatment options include reducing medications used for the treatment of PD-related motor symptoms or introducing an atypical antipsychotic drug. Only clozapine has been demonstrated to be efficacious and tolerated in double-blind controlled trials. This study evaluated the effect of aripiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic, on psychosis in PD in an open-label pilot study. Fourteen patients meeting entry criteria were started on aripiprazole 1 mg/day and titrated up to a maximum dose of 5 mg as needed. Subjects were evaluated on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III for motor function, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) for psychiatric response. Statistically significant improvement in mean BPRS and positive BPRS subscales occurred with open-label aripiprazole, but eight subjects discontinued the study due to worsened Parkinsonism (three), worsened psychosis (two), worsening of both (two), and lack of efficacy (one). While some patients had a favorable response, aripiprazole was associated with an exacerbation of motor symptoms. In this small study on psychosis in PD, aripiprazole did not appear promising.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".