MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127406167 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0304

Effect of loxapine on peripheral dopamine-like and serotonin receptors in patients with schizophrenia

2003· article· en· W2127406167 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amarendra N. Singh, Cia Barlas, Huma Saeedi, Ram K. Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCustom Security Industries (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)DopaminePeripheralSerotoninMedicineDopamine receptor D35-HT receptorDopamine receptor D2ReceptorPsychologyPharmacologyNeurosciencePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of loxapine on peripheral dopamine D2-like and serotonin receptor binding and on psychotic symptoms. PATIENTS: Patients (n = 24) meeting the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, for schizophrenia were selected from an outpatient clinic (age range 18-70 yr). METHODS: Patients were given loxapine (dose determined by a physician) for a period of 12 weeks. There were clinic visits at before treatment began and at 6 weeks and 12 weeks of treatment. Scores on a variety of efficacy and safety scales were recorded at each visit, and blood was drawn for receptor assays. RESULTS: Patients showed significant improvement on most psychiatric assessment scales after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment with loxapine, and both lymphocyte D2-like and 5-HTL2A platelet receptor binding were down-regulated after 6 and 12 weeks. The degree of receptor down-regulation was not significantly correlated with improvements in psychotic symptoms, however. CONCLUSION: Loxapine down-regulated both lymphocyte D2-like and platelet 5-HT2A receptors to the same extent, suggesting that both receptors are involved in the mechanism of action of loxapine in patients with schizophrenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207