MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078959212 · doi:10.1517/14656566.8.11.1693

Novel uses for risperidone: focus on depressive, anxiety and behavioral disorders

2007· review· en· W2078959212 on OpenAlexaff
Arun Ravindran, Cheryl L. Bradbury, Martha S. McKay, Tricia L. da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisperidoneAnxietyMedicineTolerabilityPsychiatryMood disordersMoodAtypical antipsychoticBipolar disorderSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Randomized controlled trialAntipsychoticClinical psychologyAdverse effectPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risperidone has been shown to be a safe and effective atypical antipsychotic agent. It was initially approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, and now, in many countries, is used to treat other conditions, including bipolar disorder, dementia and behavior problems in a range of age groups. Yet, frequent off-label use by clinicians to treat other mood and anxiety disorders and behavioral disorders is common and requires an examination of the risks and benefits in such populations. A review of the literature provides varying levels of evidence supporting its use in a range of depressive and anxiety disorders, and in special populations, including children and the elderly. Most reports are based on short-term studies and include its use both as monotherapy and as an augmenting agent to other psychotropics, and in a range of doses. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and tolerability of risperidone, both short- and long-term, in many of these conditions. The published evidence is summarized, with recommendations and suggestions for its use.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.320 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on PharmacotherapySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207