A double-blind randomised comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine for 2 months in the treatment of subjects with schizophrenia and comorbid depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride and olanzapine in subjects with schizophrenia and comorbid depression in a randomised double-blind trial. PATIENTS: Eighty-five adult patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia and presenting a depressive episode were randomised to amisulpride (200-600 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-15 mg/day) for 8 weeks. Primary efficacy variables were change in Calgary Depression Scale (CDS) score and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) of Change. Safety was monitored by adverse event reporting and determination of extrapyramidal function and metabolic variables. RESULTS: The mean change from baseline of CDS score was -6.84 in the amisulpride group and -7.36 in the olanzapine group. 65.9% and 61.5% of subjects, respectively, were considered "much" or "very much" improved. No significant inter-group difference in effect size was observed. The frequency of adverse events was low and emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms was not seen. Four patients in the olanzapine group developed abnormal triglyceride levels. Mean weight gain was 1.45 and 0.5 kg, respectively, in the olanzapine and amisulpride groups. CONCLUSION: Amisulpride and olanzapine are effective in patients with schizophrenia and comorbid depression. Tolerance of both drugs was acceptable, although use of olanzapine was associated with a trend toward greater metabolic side-effects .
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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) | 0.009 | 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".