Contrasting Clozapine Prescribing Patterns in the East and West?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy is common in the treatment of schizophrenia and it may be especially common in the East. In this survey, we compared the effect of clozapine, an atypical neuroleptic, on polypharmacy in two groups of patients with schizophrenia in two different settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical charts of patients on stable doses of clozapine from a Canadian psychiatric centre and that of a Southeast Asian centre were analysed to evaluate the daily dose requirement and the concomitant medications prescribed. The beliefs of the Asian psychiatrists on the concomitant use of another neuroleptic were also examined. RESULTS: The mean daily dose of clozapine was 408 mg/day for the Canadian subjects and 169 mg/day for the Asian sample. Of the Canadian sample, none were prescribed another neuroleptic, 45% were on a benzodiazepine, and 10% were receiving an anticholinergic agent. The Singapore sample indicated 28% of the subjects on another neuroleptic, with 36% taking an anticholinergic agent and 28% on a benzodiazepine. The Asian psychiatrists prescribed a second neuroleptic in the belief that it would reduce cost and enhance the antipsychotic effect. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there are regional differences in the prescription patterns and daily dose requirements of clozapine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".