Clozapine, quetiapine and olanzapine among addicted schizophrenic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although life prevalence of substance use disorders among patients with schizophrenia is close to 50%, few studies have been carried out to date to identify an integrated pharmacological treatment for this comorbidity. So far, the most promising results, that we report here, have been obtained with clozapine. To a lesser extent, quetiapine and olanzapine, both clozapine analogues, have also shown promising results. Further to these observations, the present paper critically reviews the advantages associated with clozapine, quetiapine and olanzapine, and their relevance to the treatment of addiction among schizophrenic patients. Six characteristics seem to distinguish clozapine, quetiapine and olanzapine from the first-generation antipsychotics: (1) acting preferentially on the reward system, these second-generation antipsychotics (mainly clozapine and quetiapine) induce almost no extrapyramidal symptoms; (2) quickly dissociating from D(2), theses drugs (mainly clozapine and quetiapine) seem not to induce dysphoria, unlike conventional antipsychotics like haloperidol;(3) these drugs (mainly clozapine) seem more effective in the treatment of negative symptoms than conventional antipsychotics; (4) because of a diversified activity on several serotoninergic and noradrenergic receptors, these drugs positively alter mood, which does not seem to be the case with conventional antipsychotics, except for flupenthixol; (5) these drugs have a positive impact on cognition, which is not the case with the first-generation antipsychotics; (6) unlike conventional antipsychotics, these drugs seem to have a moderate affinity for 5-HT(3), the receptor on which ondansetron, an anti-craving medication, acts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".