Intramuscular olanzapine versus short-acting typical intramuscular antipsychotics: Comparison of real-life effectiveness in the treatment of agitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine and typical IM antipsychotics in naturalistically treated acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia or acute mania. METHODS: During the acute phase, 2011 inpatients (including emergency settings) were assessed at 2, 24 and 72 h, and 7 days following initial injection and on oral antipsychotic transition. Mean change in agitation was assessed via Positive and Negative Symptom Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores. Response (> or = 40% reduction in baseline PANSS-EC score) was analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Significantly greater decreases in PANSS-EC and CGI-S scores were observed in patients receiving IM olanzapine (n = 1294) as their first injection compared with patients receiving other IM antipsychotics (n = 717) (P<0.05; 2 h: effect size 0.1); IM haloperidol treatment (all assessments, P<0.05); and IM zuclopenthixol treatment (2 h, P<0.001). Higher response rates were observed with IM olanzapine compared with other IM antipsychotics at 24 and 72 h, and 7 days (P<0.05). IM olanzapine was associated with fewer extrapyramidal side effects compared with other assessed IM antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: IM olanzapine provided somewhat more effective control of acute agitation than other assessed IM antipsychotics.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".