Augmentation of Clozapine With Agomelatine in Partial-Responder Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present 16-week open-label uncontrolled trial was aimed to explore the efficacy of adjunctive agomelatine on clinical symptoms and cognitive functioning in 20 schizophrenia patients showing partial response (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, mean [SD] baseline total score = 37.5 [6.6]) to clozapine monotherapy at the highest tolerated dosage. The results obtained evidenced that agomelatine at a dosage of 50 mg/d was associated with score reduction in all Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale domains (positive, P = 0.011 and Cohen d = 0.7; negative, P < 0.0001 and Cohen d = 1.1; psychopathology, P = 0.001 and Cohen d = 0.9) and total score (P = 0.001, Cohen d = 1.2), depressive (Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, P = 0.013 and Cohen d = 0.6), and overall clinical symptoms (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, P = 0.001 and Cohen d = 0.6 ); moreover, improved performances on Stroop task (P = 0.006, Cohen d = 0.7) and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test "perseverative errors" (P = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.3) were observed. The favorable effect of agomelatine on clinical and cognitive symptoms was encouraging, and more research is needed to better identify subgroups of patients who are partially responsive to clozapine monotherapy in which agomelatine augmentation may be of benefit.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".