Neuropsychological Change in Early Phase Schizophrenia During 12 Months of Treatment With Olanzapine, Risperidone, or Haloperidol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to test the efficacy of novel antipsychotic medications in the treatment of cognitive impairment in early phase schizophrenia. METHODS: Sixty-five patients in this multicenter double-blind study were randomly assigned to olanzapine (5-20 mg), risperidone (4-10 mg), or haloperidol (5-20 mg). Standard measures of clinical and motor syndromes were administered, as well as a comprehensive battery of tests to assess (1) motor skills, (2) attention span, (3) verbal fluency and reasoning, (4) nonverbal fluency and construction, (5) executive skills, and (6) immediate recall at baseline and after 6, 30, and 54 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The general cognitive index derived from the 6 domain scores revealed a significantly greater benefit from treatment with olanzapine relative to haloperidol and olanzapine relative to risperidone, but no significant difference was shown between risperidone and haloperidol. The improvement related to olanzapine was apparent after 6 weeks and enhanced after 30 and 54 weeks of treatment. Exploratory within-group analyses of the 6 cognitive domains after a conservative Bonferroni adjustment revealed a significant improvement with olanzapine only on the immediate recall domain, and similar analyses of the 17 individual tests revealed a significant improvement with olanzapine only on the Hooper Visual Organization Test. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that olanzapine has some superior cognitive benefits relative to haloperidol and risperidone. A larger sample replication study is necessary to confirm and generalize the observations of this study and begin evaluation of the implications of this change to cerebral function and quality of life for people with schizophrenia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".