Longitudinal Comparative Study of Risperidone and Conventional Neuroleptics for Treating Patients With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the long-term (12 months) effectiveness of risperidone (RP) with that of conventional neuroleptics (CNs) in a population with chronic schizophrenia who had shown suboptimal response to CNs. A randomized, open, parallel, multicenter design was used. One hundred eighty-four subjects meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive either RP or a CN, and 165 of them completed the follow-up. Outcome measures were taken at 3, 6, and 12 months and included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. Within this 12-month follow-up, RP was found to be superior to CNs in terms of both the average change in score from baseline on the PANSS (p = 0.006) and the proportion of good responders (as defined by a 20% decrease in total PANSS scores;p = 0.03). For positive symptoms, the effectiveness of the RP treatment tended to increase over time. At 12 months, the percentage of good responders in the RP group was twice as large as that in the CN group (30% vs. 15%;p = 0.03). The superiority of RP over CNs was constant over the three dose categories. In both the RP and the CN groups, the maximum decrease in psychopathology was achieved with the lowest dose range. A worsening of akathisia was less frequent in subjects receiving RP than in those receiving CNs (p = 0.02). In conclusion, this study showed that, compared with CNs, RP is beneficial in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia and that some of these benefits may appear only after longer-term treatment.
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".