MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014046273 · doi:10.1097/jcp.0000000000000192

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study of Naltrexone to Counteract Antipsychotic-Associated Weight Gain

2014· article· en· W2014046273 on OpenAlexaff
Cenk Tek, Joseph C. Ratliff, Erin L. Reutenauer, Rohan Ganguli, Stephanie S. O’Malley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthGenentechNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesGilead SciencesPfizerNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SYale UniversityEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsWeight gainSchizoaffective disorderMedicineNaltrexoneAntipsychoticOverweightPlaceboSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Weight lossPopulationOvereatingRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePsychiatryPsychosisBody mass indexObesityOpioidBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with schizophrenia experience higher rates of obesity as well as related morbidity and mortality than the general population does. Women with schizophrenia are at particular risk for antipsychotic-associated weight gain, obesity, and related medical disorders such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Given preclinical studies revealing the role of the endogenous opioid systems in human appetite and the potential of antipsychotic medications to interfere with this system, we hypothesized that opioid antagonists may be beneficial in arresting antipsychotic-associated weight gain and promoting further weight loss in women with schizophrenia. In the present study, 24 overweight women with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomized to placebo or naltrexone (NTX) 25 mg/d for 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure was a change in body weight from baseline. The patients in the NTX group had significant weight loss (-3.40 kg) compared with weight gain (+1.37 kg) in the patients in the placebo group. Mainly, nondiabetic subjects lost weight in the NTX arm. These data support the need to further investigate the role of D2 blockade in reducing food reward-based overeating. A larger study addressing the weaknesses of this pilot study is currently underway.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychopharmacologySame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207