Amisulpride augmentation of clozapine: an open non‐randomized study in patients with schizophrenia partially responsive to clozapine
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
OBJECTIVE: Treatment options are very limited for individuals with schizophrenia resistant to clozapine. We tested the hypothesis that amisulpride augmentation would lead to an improvement in these patients. METHOD: This was an open non-randomized study. Thirty-three patients with sub-optimal response to clozapine were commenced on amisulpride in addition to clozapine. Clinical status was evaluated at baseline, 3 and 6 months using the Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), Global Assessment Scale (GAS), Calgary Depression Scale, Calgary Anxiety Scale and various side effect rating scales. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects completed 6 months treatment on clozapine and amisulpride. There was a statistically significant improvement in the mean scores for PANSS, SANS and GAS at follow-up and no significant changes in side effect ratings. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of amisulpride, in a group of patients partially or non-responsive to clozapine, may lead to a substantial improvement in positive and negative symptoms, without worsening the side effect burden.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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