A Double-Blind Controlled Study of Adjunctive Treatment With Risperidone in Schizophrenic Patients Partially Responsive to Clozapine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several open trials and case studies have reported beneficial effects following the addition of risperidone for partial responders to clozapine. The purpose of this study was to carry out a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive treatment with risperidone in patients with schizophrenia partially responsive to clozapine. METHOD: In this 6-week double-blind study, 30 patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia who had partial response to clozapine despite being treated for a mean of 32 months were randomly assigned to risperidone (N = 16) up to 6 mg/day or placebo (N = 14). Efficacy assessments included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Calgary Depression Scale, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, the Global Assessment of Functioning scale, and the Quality of Life Scale. A variety of safety and tolerability measures were also obtained. Data were collected between November 2001 and July 2003. RESULTS: Significant improvement was noted in both groups on a variety of measures of psychopathology, but there was significantly greater improvement in the placebo-treated patients on the primary outcome measure, the PANSS positive symptom subscale. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups regarding extrapyramidal symptoms, weight gain, vital signs, serum clozapine levels, and QTc interval. The only side effect significantly more severe in risperidone-treated compared to placebo-treated patients was sedation. The patients treated with risperidone developed significant increases in plasma prolactin levels. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive risperidone treatment in schizophrenia patients partially responsive to clozapine does not significantly improve psychopathology or quality of life compared to placebo in a 6-week period.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".