MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139635960 · doi:10.1192/bjp.181.43.s45

Improvement in cognitive functioning in patients with first-episode psychosis during treatment with quetiapine: An interim analysis

2002· article· en· W2139635960 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberley P. Good, Iván Kiss, Christine Buiteman, H.G. Woodley, Qing Rui, D. Whitehorn, Lili C. Kopala

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuetiapineQuetiapine FumarateCognitionInterimVerbal fluency testSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychosisPsychiatryMedicineAtypical antipsychoticPsychologyClinical psychologyAudiologyAntipsychoticNeuropsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The efficacies of second-generation antipsychotic medications in reducing symptoms are reasonably well-documented, but their effects on cognition are less clearly understood. AIMS: To under take an interim analysis of an open label, 2-year study examining the effects of quetiapine on cognition in patients with a first episode of schizophrenia and related disorders. METHOD: Cognitive testing was performed before quetiapine was initiated and repeated after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment. To date, 13 patients have been fully assessed (mean dose 517.9 mg/day; s.d. = 225.8). RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement was noted on measures of attention (Continuous Performance Test; CPT), verbal productivity (Verbal Fluency Test) and executive function (Object Alternation Test) after 6 and 12 months of treatment. For the CPT, improvement was also noted after 3 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: During treatment for 1 year with quetiapine, cognitive performance was improved in young patients with psychosis. Continued controlled investigations of the effects of quetiapine on cognition are desirable.

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations60
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207