MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005153650 · doi:10.4137/cmt.s3567

Risperidone for Individuals with Refractory Schizophrenia

2010· article· en· W2005153650 on OpenAlexaff
Priya Subramanian, Abraham Rudnick

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine Insights Therapeutics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisperidoneSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Refractory (planetary science)AntipsychoticClozapinePsychiatryAtypical antipsychoticMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Risperidone has been shown to be as effective as other atypical antipsychotic medications in the treatment of psychotic symptoms, but its effectiveness in refractory psychotic symptoms is unclear. Objective In this paper, we aim to review the available evidence related to the use of risperidone in refractory schizophrenia. Methods English language articles ranging from 1985 to 2009 (inclusive) were retrieved from Pubmed in December 2009 using the search terms ‘schizophrenia’, ‘refractory’, ‘resistant’, ‘risperidone’, ‘atypical’, ‘combination’ and ‘antipsychotic’. Results The available literature is conflicting on the use of risperidone as an augmentation of clozapine or of other antipsychotics and methodological problems make drawing firm conclusions difficult. Studies using Risperidone Long Acting Injection have included both individuals with recent-onset schizophrenia and those with refractory schizophrenia, whch makes it difficult to interpret its effectiveness specifically for those with refractory schizophrenia. Risperidone may reduce potentially disabling cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia, but these effects do not differ significantly from that of other typical and atypical antipsychotic medications. Conclusion Further and more rigorous research is required on risperidone for refractory schizophrenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine Insights TherapeuticsSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207