MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2182055881 · doi:10.1177/070674370304800208

Clozapine Treatment in Patients with Prior Substance Abuse

2003· article· en· W2182055881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deanna L. Kelly, Elizabeth Gale, Robert R. Conley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsClozapineSubstance abusePsychiatrySubstance abuse treatmentMedicinePsychologyPsychosisSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study examined outcomes following discharge on clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients with and without diagnosed substance abuse histories. METHODS: Those discharged on clozapine from a research unit between April 1991 and March 1996 were followed with respect to hospitalization status. Of the treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia, 19 were diagnosed as individuals with substance abuse, while 26 patients had no history of abuse. Patients were openly treated with clozapine and were included in the study if they were stabilized and discharged on the medication. RESULTS: Patients who had histories of abuse exhibited a better treatment response and a lower total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score at discharge, compared with the non-substance abuse group. One-year readmission rates were 21% and 23% in patients with and without prior substance abuse histories, respectively (P = ns). CONCLUSIONS: Clozapine may be a therapeutic option for the dually diagnosed population and may offer benefits to patients with schizophrenia who have a history of substance abuse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→