Risperidone in the Treatment of Disruptive Behavioral Symptoms in Children With Autistic and Other Pervasive Developmental Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of risperidone for the treatment of disruptive behavioral symptoms in children with autism and other pervasive developmental disorders (PDD). METHODS: In this 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, risperidone/placebo solution (0.01-0.06 mg/kg/day) was administered to 79 children who were aged 5 to 12 years and had PDD. Behavioral symptoms were assessed using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form, and Clinical Global Impression-Change. Safety assessments included vital signs, electrocardiogram, extrapyramidal symptoms, adverse events, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Subjects who were taking risperidone (mean dosage: 0.04 mg/kg/day; 1.17 mg/day) experienced a significantly greater mean decrease on the irritability subscale of the ABC (primary endpoint) compared with those who were taking placebo. By study endpoint, risperidone-treated subjects exhibited a 64% improvement over baseline in the irritability score almost double that of placebo-treated subjects (31%). Risperidone-treated subjects also exhibited significantly greater decreases on the other 4 subscales of the ABC; on the conduct problem, insecure/anxious, hyperactive, and overly sensitive subscales of the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form (parent version); and on the Visual Analog Scale of the most troublesome symptom. More risperidone-treated subjects (87%) showed global improvement in their condition compared with the placebo group (40%). Somnolence, the most frequently reported adverse event, was noted in 72.5% versus 7.7% of subjects (risperidone vs placebo) and seemed manageable with dose/dose-schedule modification. Risperidone-treated subjects experienced statistically significantly greater increases in weight (2.7 vs 1.0 kg), pulse rate, and systolic blood pressure. Extrapyramidal symptoms scores were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone was well tolerated and efficacious in treating behavioral symptoms associated with PDD in children.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".