Effect of Clozapine and Olanzapine on Neutrophil Kinetics: Implications for Drug-Induced Agranulocytosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clozapine is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia; however, its use is limited by a relatively high incidence of idiosyncratic agranulocytosis. The mechanism of clozapine-induced idiosyncratic agranulocytosis is unknown. Although most patients treated with clozapine do not develop agranulocytosis, most do have an immune response with an increase in inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and a release of immature neutrophils with neutrophilia rather than agranulocytosis. We have previously shown that treatment of rabbits with clozapine also causes an early release of neutrophils. Clozapine is oxidized to a reactive nitrenium ion that covalently binds to neutrophils, and this reactive metabolite may be responsible for the observed effects. Olanzapine and clozapine have very similar structures, and olanzapine is also oxidized to a reactive nitrenium ion; however, if it ever causes agranulocytosis, the incidence is much lower than that of clozapine. One possible basis for the difference in incidence of agranulocytosis between clozapine and olanzapine is that the therapeutic dose of olanzapine is much lower than that of clozapine. In this study, we compared the effects of clozapine and olanzapine in Sprague-Dawley rats at an equimolar dose and found that only clozapine had a significant effect on neutrophil kinetics. This suggests that the immune response and effects on neutrophil kinetics induced by clozapine are related to its ability to cause agranulocytosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".