Response to clozapine in a clinically identifiable subtype of schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic testing in psychiatry promises to improve patient care through advances in personalised medicine. However, there are few clinically relevant examples. AIMS: To determine whether patients with a well-established genetic subtype of schizophrenia show a different response profile to the antipsychotic clozapine than those with idiopathic schizophrenia. METHOD: We retrospectively studied the long-term safety and efficacy of clozapine in 40 adults with schizophrenia, half with a 22q11.2 deletion (22q11.2DS group) and half matched for age and clinical severity but molecularly confirmed to have no pathogenic copy number variant (idiopathic group). RESULTS: Both groups showed similar clinical improvement and significant reductions in hospitalisations, achieved at a lower median dose for those in the 22q11.2DS group. Most common side-effects were similarly prevalent between the two groups, however, half of the 22q11.2DS group experienced at least one rare serious adverse event compared with none of the idiopathic group. Many were successfully retried on clozapine. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with 22q11.2DS-schizophrenia respond as well to clozapine treatment as those with other forms of schizophrenia, but may represent a disproportionate number of those with serious adverse events, primarily seizures. Lower doses and prophylactic (for example anticonvulsant) management strategies can help ameliorate side-effect risks. This first systematic evaluation of antipsychotic response in a genetic subtype of schizophrenia provides a proof-of-principle for personalised medicine and supports the utility of clinical genetic testing in 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".