MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189277541 · doi:10.1177/070674370204700809

Dissolution Profile, Tolerability, and Acceptability of the Orally Disintegrating Olanzapine Tablet in Patients with Schizophrenia

2002· article· en· W2189277541 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pierre Chue, B. Jones, Cindy C. Taylor, R. A. Dickson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)University of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsOlanzapineTolerabilityMedicineAdverse effectSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AnesthesiaPsychiatryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study investigates the dissolution profile, tolerability, and acceptability of an orally disintegrating olanzapine tablet in patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Eleven patients with schizophrenia stabilized on oral olanzapine (mean dosage 12.7 mg daily [SD5.2]) were given an orally disintegrating olanzapine tablet, rather than their usual tablet, daily for 7 days. At each visit, visual assessments were made for elapsed time to initial disintegration (every 15 seconds) and complete disintegration (every 1 minute). At the end of the study, patients completed a drug-acceptance questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean time to initial disintegration was 15.78 seconds, and mean time to complete disintegration was 0.97 minutes. All patients found the orally disintegrating tablet acceptable and expressed positive comments. Nonserious clinically significant adverse events, asthenia, purpuric rash, headache, depression, and insomnia (preexisting, except for asthenia and insomnia) were reported in 3 patients. CONCLUSION: The orally disintegrating olanzapine tablet disintegrates rapidly and is a well-tolerated and acceptable alternative to standard olanzapine tablets in patients with schizophrenia.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
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 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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207