A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of Risperidone Versus Low-Dose Risperidone Plus Low-Dose Haloperidol in Treating Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monotherapy is recommended for schizophrenia treatment, but the risk-benefit issue of antipsychotic drug combination (except for clozapine) remains unclear. Risperidone, an atypical antipsychotic drug, has a lower incidence of extrapyramidal syndrome but higher risks of prolactinemia and metabolic syndrome than haloperidol, a typical agent. This study compared efficacy and safety of risperidone monotherapy versus low-dose risperidone plus low-dose haloperidol in schizophrenia. In this 6-week, double-blind study, patients were randomized to the combination group (2-mg/d risperidone plus 2-mg/d haloperidol, n = 46) or the monotherapy group (4-mg/d risperidone, n = 42). Efficacy assessments included Clinical Global Impression-Severity, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and subscales, Calgary Depression Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning, and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36. Safety was rigorously monitored. Response was defined as 30% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. The 2 treatment groups were similar in (1) demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, (2) response rate, and (3) improvement in various psychopathological measures and quality of life at end point. The monotherapy group had a higher increase in prolactin levels (P = 0.04) and Simpson-Angus Scale scores (P = 0.04) and a higher percentage of biperiden use (P = 0.045). There were no significant between-group difference in changes in weight, vital signs, corrected QT interval, liver/renal function, fasting glucose level, and lipid profiles. The findings suggest that risperidone monotherapy may yield higher prolactin levels than a combination of low-dose risperidone plus low-dose haloperidol. The 2 treatment groups are similar in efficacy, life quality, and other safety profiles. Future long-term studies are warranted.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".