A Random-Assignment, Double-Blind, Clinical Trial of Once- vs Twice-Daily Administration of Quetiapine Fumarate in Patients with Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of administering quetiapine once vs twice daily. METHOD: Utilizing a double-blind design, 21 hospitalized adult men or women with DSM-IV schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, who had received unchanged doses (for 2 weeks) of either 400 or 600 mg daily of quetiapine administered in 2 doses, were randomly assigned to once- or twice-daily administration for 4 weeks and then crossed over to the opposite dosing regimen for an additional 4 weeks. Standard psychopathology and safety measures were used in the study. RESULTS: Nearly 70% (15/21) of the subjects met the a priori efficacy responder criteria with no statistical differences in response between those assigned to once- or twice-daily quetiapine administration. Statistical analyses confirmed that most subjects maintained efficacy during the switch to once- or twice-daily administration with quetiapine. A minority (15%) did experience worsening of symptoms or orthostatic hypotension during the crossover. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated at either twice- or once-daily administration. CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data suggest that it is clinically feasible to switch most quetiapine-treated subjects receiving a therapeutic twice-daily dosing schedule to a once-daily regimen. A minority may experience worsening of symptoms or orthostatic hypotension during the switch. This strategy of administering quetiapine entirely at bedtime may promote improved adherence to treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".