Absence of evidence that the pro re nata regimen confers benefit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies were sought that evaluated the prevalence, effectiveness, and safety of pro re nata (p.r.n.) medications in psychiatric practice for which evidence has been scarce despite their wide application. To this end, a systematic literature search was performed using various search engines (last search: October 2012) with cross-referencing. A total of 34 studies were identified: 16 studies on epidemiological usage, 16 retrospective studies on effectiveness/safety as well as reasons, and only two prospective studies on the effectiveness/safety of p.r.n. medications. All the patients studied were inpatients, and the reasons for p.r.n. were acute behavioral dyscontrol in 29 studies. Psychiatric diagnoses and outcome measures to assess effectiveness/safety varied and were described in 27 and 20 studies, respectively. Medications under study included antipsychotics (mainly chlorpromazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine), benzodiazepines (mainly diazepam and lorazepam), and antihistamines (mainly diphenhydramine). Altogether, 17 studies reported that p.r.n. medications were effective in psychiatric inpatients. Those two prospective studies targeted solely a child/adolescent population with small sample sizes. Currently available data are limited in number, quality, and scope; there has been only equivocal evidence to guide the choice of p.r.n. medications for psychiatric patients, hence there is a need for more investigations on this important clinical topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".