MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077169302 · doi:10.1586/ern.12.138

The pharmacology and formulation of paliperidone extended release

2012· review· en· W2077169302 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Chue, Erin M. MacKenzie, James Chue, Glen B. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaliperidonePaliperidone PalmitatePharmacologyMedicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AntipsychoticPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paliperidone, or 9-hydroxyrisperidone (Invega(®), Janssen, Antwerp, Belgium) is the major active metabolite of the atypical antipsychotic risperidone (Risperdal(®), Janssen). It possesses a similar, though not identical, receptor pharmacology to the parent molecule. There are additional differences in terms of its predominant renal metabolism, lower protein binding and decreased inhibition of P-glycoprotein leading to decreased potential for drug-drug interactions. Paliperidone is approved as an extended release (ER) tablet based on an osmotic-controlled release oral Push-Pull™ delivery system (Oral Osmotic System, OROS(®), Alza Corporation) for the treatment of schizophrenia. The ER formulation results in decreased fluctuations in plasma drug levels and allows for once-daily administration with initial tolerability that permits treatment initiation at a clinically effective dose without the need for titration. This achieves therapeutic levels rapidly and simplifies dosing regimens, leading to potentially better adherence and improved outcome. The present review focuses on the clinical implications of the pharmacology and formulation of paliperidone ER.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207