An Open-label Trial of Risperidone and Fluoxetine in Children with Autistic Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Various studies have shown the effectiveness of risperidone and fluoxetine in the management of behavioral problems in autism. AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare these two drugs in the management of behavioral problems in autism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty children with autism were divided into 2 groups in a 16-week open trial that compared these two drugs. Parents rated the children using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC) and the Conners' Parent Rating Scale - Revised (CPRS-R). The author rated the children using the Children's Psychiatric Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scale. RESULTS: The risperidone group showed significant improvement in areas like irritability and hyperactivity, while the fluoxetine group showed significant improvement in speech deviance, social withdrawal and stereotypy. When the two drugs were compared, fluoxetine showed greater improvement in stereotypy, while both drugs showed improvement on the general autism scale; and on anger, hyperactivity and irritability scales. CONCLUSIONS: In this open trial, both drugs were well tolerated and appeared to be beneficial in the treatment of common behavioral problems in children with autism. Further controlled and double-blind studies in larger samples are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".