A clinical study of ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia with depressive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia complicated with depressive symptoms.Methods A total of 98 schizophrenic patients were randomly divided into ziprasidone group(n=30),risperidone group(n=35),perphenazine group(n=33) treated with ziprasidone,risperidone and perphenazine respectively for 8 weeks.Clinical efficacy was assessed with Positive and Negative Sydrome Scale(PANSS),Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia(CDSS) and side effects was assessed with the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale(TESS) at the baseline and at the 2nd,4th and 8th weekend of the treatment.Results At the end of the treatment,total score of PANSS and CDSS in three groups decreased significantly compared with the baseline.There were no significant differences in score of PANSS and CDSS between ziprasidone group and risperidone group,but scores of PANSS and CDSS in the two groups were significantly higher than those in perphenazine group(P0.05).At the end of the 2nd week,total score of CDSS in ziprasidone group was significantly lower than that in risperidone group(P0.05).At the 4th and 8th weekend of the treatment,efficacy in ziprasidone group was almost equal to risperidone group,and there was significant difference in socre of CDSS when compared with perphenazine group(P0.05).Side effects in ziprasidone group and risperidone group were all mild and were significantly less than that in perphenazine group.Conclusion The efficacy of ziprasidone is equivalent to risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia.The two agents improves negative symptoms and depressive symptoms more significantly than perphenazine.Ziprasidone takes effect more quickly and has better safety for the improvement of depressive symptoms.
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) | 0.001 | 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".