A Discussion of 2 Double-Blind Studies Comparing Risperidone and Quetiapine in Patients With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article AbstractBecause this piece does not have an abstract, we have provided for your benefit the first 3 sentences of the full text.Sir: We read with great interest the recent article by Zhong and colleagues1 reporting results of a trial comparing quetiapine and risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia. In that double-blind, 8-week study, there was a statistically significant difference favoring risperidone on the change at endpoint on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive symptoms subscale (an a priori secondary efficacy measure). In the same month, we2 published similar findings from a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing these 2 atypical antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia experiencing an acute exacerbation requiring hospitalization (least squares mean ± SE change from baseline to endpoint of the monotherapy phase for PANSS positive symptoms: -8.7 ± 0.5 with risperidone and -5.9 ± 0.5 with quetiapine; p < .01).' ‹
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 | 0.078 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".