Different mechanisms of risperidone result in improved interpersonal trust, social engagement and cooperative behavior in patients with schizophrenia compared to trifluoperazine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Atypical antipsychotic treatment (e.g. risperidone) has been found to improve social functioning more than standard antipsychotic treatment. However, it is unclear which specific social behaviors are implicated in this improvement. The current study employed an interactive puzzle game to examine how social behaviors contribute to the improvement of social functioning by comparing patients receiving risperidone with those receiving trifluoperazine. METHODS: Scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, executive functioning, and social functioning were obtained from 24 patients with schizophrenia receiving either risperidone (n = 12) or trifluoperazine (n = 12), before their social behavior was measured in the interactive Tangrams Game. Immediately after the Tangrams Game, participants filled in two questionnaires measuring their interpersonal trust and rejection toward their game partner. RESULTS: Patients receiving risperidone showed more social engagement, cooperative behavior and interpersonal trust toward their game partners than those receiving trifluoperazine. Additional multivariate analysis of variance revealed that lower affiliative behavior was a function of positive symptoms; interpersonal trust had an impact on social engagement but executive functioning did not explain lower interpersonal trust or social disengagement. CONCLUSION: Improvement of social competence by risperidone might be related to the enhancement of both social behaviors and interpersonal trust as well as better symptom resolution.
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".