Procedural Learning in Schizophrenia Can Reflect the Pharmacologic Properties of the Antipsychotic Treatments
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
BACKGROUND: Conventional and atypical antipsychotics have different affinities for D2 receptors, and these receptors are principally located in the striatum. Given that this cerebral structure was previously found to play a major role in procedural learning, the antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia may be determinant for the procedural learning profile of these patients. OBJECTIVE: The current study was aimed at verifying whether procedural learning differs in patients with schizophrenia treated with conventional antipsychotics and patients treated with atypical antipsychotics. METHOD: Forty-five patients with schizophrenia were divided into 3 different groups according to their pharmacologic treatment: (1) haloperidol, a classical neuroleptic with high D2 receptor affinity; (2) clozapine, an atypical neuroleptic with practically no D2 receptor affinity; and (3) risperidone, an atypical neuroleptic that nevertheless shows high D2 receptor affinity. Patients were compared to 35 control subjects on a visuomotor procedural learning task (mirror drawing). RESULTS: All patients were able to learn the task. However, those treated with haloperidol showed some degree of learning impairment, while those treated with clozapine or risperidone did not show this impairment. In addition, performance per se, regardless of the learning, was found to be affected in the haloperidol and risperidone, but not in the clozapine groups. CONCLUSION: Procedural learning in schizophrenia may be differentially affected, depending on the pharmacologic profiles of the antipsychotics used for the treatment of this illness.
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