Elevation of Prolactin Levels by Atypical Antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Atypical antipsychotics are thought not to elevate prolactin levels. The authors examined data suggesting that atypical antipsychotics do elevate prolactin levels but more transiently than typical antipsychotics. METHOD: Prolactin levels in 18 male patients with schizophrenia who were receiving atypical antipsychotics were monitored over the 24-hour period following administration of their daily oral dose of risperidone, olanzapine, or clozapine. RESULTS: The baseline prolactin levels in patients receiving risperidone (mean=27 ng/ml, SD=14) were abnormally high, but baseline prolactin levels in patients receiving olanzapine (mean=9 ng/ml, SD=5) and clozapine (mean=9 ng/ml, SD=5) were not high. All three atypical antipsychotics caused a doubling of prolactin levels over baseline levels 6 hours after medication administration. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that these atypical antipsychotics raise prolactin levels, although the increases with olanzapine did not reach statistical significance. This suggests that the differences in the effects on prolactin levels of atypical and typical antipsychotics are not categorical but lie in the degree and duration of dose-induced prolactin elevation, attributable to the differential binding properties of each drug on pituitary dopamine D(2) receptors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".