Comparison the efficacy and safety of Amisulpride and Risperidone in treatment of schizophrenia patients with first episode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of Amisulpride and Risperidone in treatment of schizophrenia patients with first episode.Methods:Ninety-six schizophrenia patients with first episode who met the schizophrenia criterion of Chinese classification of mental disorder(CCMD-3) were divided into two groups randomly and treated with Amisulpride or Risperidone for 8 weeks respectively.The positive and negative scale(PANSS),Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia(CDSS-C) and treatment emergent side effect scale(TESS) were used to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effect respectively during the treatment.Results: The cure rate of Amisulpride group was 20.8% and efficacy rate was 87.5% after 8 weeks,which was 18.8% and 83.3% in Risperidone group.There were no statistical differences between these two groups(P0.05).The incidence rate of adverse effect was 37.5% in Amisulpride group and that was 43.7% in Risperdone group.There were also no statistical differences between these two groups(P0.05).However,in respect of prolactin and weight,Amisulpride group was less influence than Risperidone.Conclusions: Amisulpride and Risperdone appear to be similarly both in effective and adverse functions in the treatment of schizophrenia patients with first episode.We found Amisulpride may be somewhat more effective than Risperidone in treatment of affective and negative symptoms,in schizophrenia patients with first episode,and more tolerable in terms of weight and prolactin problems than Risperidone.These data,however,are based on only 8 weeks studies and therefore too limited to allow for firm conclusions.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".