Ten year outcomes of outpatients with schizophrenia on conventional depot antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term follow-up data of patients with schizophrenia on depot antipsychotics have been few and the longest follow-up period has been up to 7 years. We carried out a systematic chart review to examine 10-year outcomes for outpatients with schizophrenia who were receiving a conventional depot antipsychotic. Maintenance of outpatient status for 10 years was considered as a favorable outcome. From the initial sample of 1587 outpatients, 90 patients who were receiving a depot antipsychotic were included in this study (mean±SD, age 44.0±13.0 years; men, N=54). Haloperidol decanoate, fluphenazine decanoate, fluphenazine enanthate, and haloperidol decanoate plus fluphenazine enanthate were used in 53 (58.9%), 29 (32.2%), seven (7.8%), and one (1.1%) patients, respectively. These depot antipsychotics accounted for 36.9% of the total antipsychotic dosage on average. Seventeen patients (18.9%) successfully maintained outpatient status for 10 years. The most frequent reason for dropout was 'hospitalization' (N=49, 54.4%), followed by 'referral to another clinic/hospital' (N=9, 10.0%) and 'side effects' (N=7, 7.8%). As only 36.9% of the chlorpromazine equivalents were administered through depot antipsychotics, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion. Still, the data suggest that even depot antipsychotics may not sufficiently prevent relapse in the treatment of 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 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".