Open‐label flexible‐dose pilot study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of aripiprazole in patients with psychosis associated with Parkinson's disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 it