Clozapine administration in clinical practice: once‐daily versus divided dosing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While it is recommended that clozapine be administered in a divided dosing regimen, it is unclear whether this recommendation is followed in real-world clinical practice. In two large datasets, we examined clozapine dosing frequency and patient characteristics across different dosing regimens. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional survey, collecting data on patients receiving clozapine in August/September 2015 from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Canada, and The Zucker Hillside Hospital (ZHH) in New York, United States. RESULTS: Of 676 and 308 patients included in CAMH and ZHH datasets, clozapine was prescribed once daily in 75.1% and 74.4%, even though doses exceeding 200 mg/day were administered in 88.6% and 84.4% of the respective samples. No significant difference was found in the rates of positive symptom remission between once-daily vs. divided dosing (79.7% vs. 80.5%, P = 1.00). Higher clozapine dose and use of anticholinergic medications were significantly associated with divided dosing in both datasets. Older age or male gender was related to divided dosing in CAMH or ZHH dataset respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the product monograph recommendation, clozapine is frequently prescribed once daily in North America. Further studies are needed to compare clinical outcomes between once-daily vs. divided clozapine dosing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".