Paliperidone ER versus risperidone for neurocognitive function in patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the effectiveness of paliperidone extended release (ER) on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia in comparison with risperidone. This was a 12-week, randomized, open-label study on schizophrenia patients who were receiving risperidone. The patients were randomized to a risperidone-continuation group or a paliperidone-switch group. The primary outcome measure was neurocognitive function, which was measured using a computerized battery. Secondary efficacy measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Social and Occupational Functioning Scale, and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. In total, 58 patients participated in this trial. Improvements in recall after an interference phase in the verbal learning test were significantly greater in the paliperidone-switch than in the risperidone-continuation group. No significant differences in changes were observed in the other six neurocognitive domains measured. Improvements in the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale were significantly greater in the paliperidone ER-switch group than in the risperidone-continuation group. In other efficacy outcome measures, no significant differences were observed between the two drugs. Paliperidone ER had a side-effect profile similar to that of risperidone, including metabolic problems and prolactin-related adverse events. In conclusion, switching from risperidone to paliperidone ER may lead to additional cognitive and social functional improvements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".