Risperidone in the Treatment of Tourette Syndrome: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of 8 weeks of treatment with risperidone in the management of 48 adolescent and adult patients with Tourette syndrome. Twenty-four patients were randomly assigned to treatment with risperidone in doses of 0.5 to 6.0 mg/day, and 24 were assigned to placebo. The dosage of medication was increased in fixed increments during the first week of double-blind treatment and thereafter in a flexible dose regimen according to clinical response. Risperidone, at a median dose of 2.5 mg/day (range, 1 to 6 mg/day), was found to be significantly ( p < 0.05) superior to placebo on the Global Severity Rating of the Tourette Syndrome Severity Scale. The proportion of patients who improved by at least one point on this seven-point scale was 60.8% in the risperidone group and 26.1% in the placebo group. Treatment with risperidone was accompanied by an improvement in global functioning in patients with average to above-average impairment at baseline as measured by the Global Assessment of Functioning scale. With respect to extrapyramidal symptom scores measured on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale, hypokinesia and tremor increased in the risperidone group, but the effect on tremor was largely confined to subjects with higher baseline tremor scores. There were no significant differences in dystonic reactions, dyskinetic movements, subjective parkinsonism, or akathisia. Risperidone did not increase obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Fatigue and somnolence were the most common adverse events associated with risperidone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".