[Subjective and objective evaluation of treating schizophrenia with classic or atypical drugs].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjective and objective evaluation of pharmacological treatment was made in 105 schizophrenic in-patients. PANSS and Calgary scale as well as Van Putten scale were used. Fifty-four percent of subjects received classic neuroleptics and 46%--new atypical drugs for an average period of 8 weeks. The severity of schizophrenic symptoms during treatment as well as subjective evaluation of first effects of the drug did not differ among subjects treated with classic or atypical drugs. Depressive symptoms decreased significantly during treatment with atypicals but not with classic drugs. Also a significant decrease of depression was found under olanzapine treatment. The severity of neuroleptic-induced side-effects did not differ in both groups. Neurological side effects were more prominent in subjects after 4 weeks of therapy with risperidone, in comparison to patients receiving olanzapine. Forty-seven per-cent of patients showed a dysphoric reaction to the first dose of medication. After treatment with atypical drugs, better subjective evaluation of pharmacotherapy correlated with less severe general and depressive schizophrenia symptoms. Patients' better evaluation of olanzapine treatment correlated with less severe schizophrenic general symptomatology. The subjective evaluation of treatment was better in patients with less severe neurological side-effects of atypical drugs (including olanzapine but not risperidone) and less severe autonomic side-effects of classic drugs. The evaluation of pharmacotherapy made by patients' family members did not correlate with subjects' opinions after distribution of the first dose of the drugs, but correlated significantly with patients' opinion after 8-weeks of treatment. The treatment received by the patients was judged better by the family members if less severe neurological side-effects were present.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".