Long-Acting Injectable Risperidone Compared with Zuclopenthixol in the Treatment of Schizophrenia with Substance Abuse Comorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of long-acting risperidone and zuclopenthixol in subjects with schizophrenia and substance abuse. METHOD: A total of 115 subjects with schizophrenia and substance use disorders were enrolled for an open, randomized, controlled, 6-month follow-up study. Fifty-seven subjects were selected for treatment with long-acting injectable risperidone, while another 58 were treated with zuclopenthixol-depot. RESULTS: Long-acting risperidone patients presented fewer positive urine tests (8.67 compared with 10.36, P = 0.005), showed improved scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and showed better compliance with the Substance Abuse Management program. The use of long-acting risperidone and less severe dependence explained the outcome at the end of the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting injectable risperidone was more effective than zuclopenthixol-depot in improving substance abuse and schizophrenia symptoms in subjects with dual diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".