Influence of novel and conventional antipsychotic medication on subjective quality of life.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of novel antipsychotic medication on the subjective quality of life of patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of data from 2 studies conducted in 1997 and 1998. PATIENTS: 91 outpatients (50 men and 41 women, mean age 43.3 years) diagnosed with schizophrenia (n = 70) and schizoaffective disorder (n = 21); the mean Global Assessment of Functioning score for these patients was 48.0 (standard deviation 12.5). OUTCOME MEASURE: Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 groups: those taking conventional (n = 41), novel (n = 26) or mixed (both conventional and novel) (n = 24) antipsychotics. Responses on the Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale were used to assess subjective quality of life. RESULTS: The type of antipsychotic medication taken did not influence satisfaction with life scores; in fact, 2 items dealing with social relationships were scored lower by those taking novel antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking novel antipsychotics may expect more from life, and this might explain their lower quality-of-life scores.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".