Lamotrigine augmentation in schizophrenia and schizoaffective patients with obsessive-compulsive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS) are clinically important phenomena in schizophrenia patients. Lamotrigine has a modulating effect on glutamatergic neurotransmission relevant to pathophysiology of both schizophrenia and OCD. Efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in schizophrenia and schizoaffective patients with comorbid OCS were evaluated. In an 8-week, open-label trial, lamotrigine (25 mg/day for 1 week, 50 mg for 2 weeks, 100 mg for 2 weeks, 200 mg for 3 weeks) was added to ongoing psychotropic drug regimens in schizophrenia (N = 5) and schizoaffective disorder (N = 6) patients with clinically significant OCS [Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score > 16]. The Y-BOCS score for nine completers decreased significantly from baseline to week 8 (22.9 +/- 6.1 vs 17.4 +/- 3.6; t = 2.33, df = 1, P = 0.033). Five patients, all with schizoaffective disorder, were responders (>or=35% decrease in Y-BOCS score). No significant changes were detected in schizophrenia symptom severity. Depressive symptoms, assessed with the Calgary Depression Rating Scale, improved significantly (6.4 +/- 1.5 vs 4.0 +/- 2.5; t = 3.19, df = 1, P = 0.013); this change positively correlated with OCS improvement (r = 0.69, P = 0.04). Lamotrigine was safe and well tolerated. Explicit evaluation of therapeutic efficacy of adjunctive lamotrigine in schizoaffective disorder patients with comorbid OCS merits further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".