An Algorithm-Based Approach to First-Episode Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Early, effective treatment in first-episode schizophrenia is advocated, although evidence based on a systematic approach over multiple antipsychotic trials is lacking. Employing a naturalistic design, we examined response rates over 3 circumscribed antipsychotic trials. METHOD: Between June 2003 and December 2008, 244 individuals with first-episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder according to DSM-IV criteria were treated at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, following an algorithm that moved them through 2 antipsychotic trials, followed by a trial with clozapine. For the first 2 trials, treatment consisted of risperidone followed by olanzapine, or vice versa; each trial consisted of 3 stages (low-, full-, or high-dose) lasting up to 4 weeks at each level and adjusted according to response/tolerability. Clinical response was defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score of 2 (much improved) or 1 (very much improved) and/or a Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Thought Disorder subscale score ≤ 6. Data were analyzed retrospectively, and publication of anonymized clinical data was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in May 2003. RESULTS: In trial 1, 74.5% of individuals responded, with rates significantly higher for olanzapine (82.1%, 115/140) versus risperidone (66.3%, 69/104; P = .005). With trial 2, response rate dropped dramatically to 16.6% but again was significantly higher for olanzapine (25.7%, 9/35) compared to risperidone (4.0%, 1/25; P = .04). Response rate climbed above 70% once more, specifically 75.0% (21/28), in those individuals who agreed to a third trial with clozapine. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm a high response rate (75%) to initial antipsychotic treatment in first-episode schizophrenia. A considerably lower response rate (< 20%) occurs with a second antipsychotic trial. Results here were specific to olanzapine and risperidone, suggesting clinical differences (ie, olanzapine more effective than risperidone). A subsequent trial with clozapine is clearly warranted, although it remains unclear whether outcome would be further enhanced if it were used earlier in the treatment algorithm.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".