Resource utilization in a Canadian national study of people with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how the use of the newer, so called atypical antipsychotic medications, effects the pharmacoeconomic treatment burden of schizophrenia and related conditions and to provide a clear comparison of the costs and risks associated with these atypical drugs. METHOD: In this 2-year, open-label, prospective study, resource utilization (RU) data were collected on 160 patients with these conditions. A comparison between risks and costs was performed by combining the generalized CNOMSS data on both economic factors and risk assessments. RESULTS: The main findings of the study were that the total adjusted 1- and 2-year costs were lowest for quetiapine. Drug acquisition costs were lowest for risperidone for both the 1- and 2-year cohorts. Clozapine use was predictably associated with the highest overall and medication costs at both 1 and 2 years. CONCLUSION: Treatment with risperidone or quetiapine was associated with the lowest overall costs when compared with olanzapine or clozapine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".