Are We Treating Schizophrenia Effectively? Understanding the Primary Outcomes of the CATIE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study for schizophrenia was designed to independently evaluate the effectiveness of antipsychotic treatment in "real-world" patients. To assess the effectiveness of the conventional antipsychotics compared to the atypicals as well as the differences among the atypicals, patients were randomized to one of four atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone) or a representative conventional antipsychotic (perphenazine). Effectiveness was defined by time to discontinuation and duration of successful treatment. Time to "all-cause" discontinuation reflects both efficacy (ability of a drug to reduce symptoms) and safety/tolerability. Phase I revealed discontinuation rates ranging from 64% for olanzapine to 82% for quetiapine. Differences among the medications may be important in the selection of a drug for a particular patient. Physicians should involve the patient in choosing their medication by inquiring about the patient's past experience with medications and side effects, educating the patient on the risk-benefit ratio, and considering the patient's preference. To demonstrate how results of the CATIE study can contribute to the knowledge of practicing clinicians, this monograph presents a representative clinical case patient and illustrates how the CATIE safety and efficacy data has important implications for the patient.
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".