Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Olanzapine Versus Placebo in Patients Prodromally Symptomatic for Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of olanzapine in delaying or preventing conversion to psychosis and reducing symptoms in people with prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia. METHOD: This randomized trial occurred at four North American clinics in the Prevention Through Risk Identification, Management, and Education project. Outpatients received olanzapine (5-15 mg/day, N=31) or placebo (N=29) during a 1-year double-blind treatment period and no treatment during a 1-year follow-up period. Efficacy measures included the conversion-to-psychosis rate and Scale of Prodromal Symptoms scores. RESULTS: During the treatment year, 16.1% of olanzapine patients and 37.9% of placebo patients experienced a conversion to psychosis, a nearly significant difference. The hazard of conversion among placebo patients was about 2.5 times that among olanzapine-treated patients, which also approached significance. In the follow-up year, the conversion rate did not differ significantly between groups. During treatment, the mean score for prodromal positive symptoms improved more in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group, and the mixed-model repeated-measures least-squares mean score showed significantly greater improvement between weeks 8 and 28 with olanzapine. The olanzapine patients gained significantly more weight (mean=8.79 kg, SD=9.05, versus mean=0.30 kg, SD=4.24). CONCLUSIONS: A significant treatment difference in the conversion-to-psychosis rate was not demonstrated. However, these results may be influenced by low power. The nearly significant differences suggest that olanzapine might reduce the conversion rate and delay onset of psychosis. Olanzapine was efficacious for positive prodromal symptoms but induced weight gain. Further treatment research in this phase of illness is 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".