Effect of Clozapine on Psychiatric Comorbidities in Patients with Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Clozapine has superior efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and has various effects on psychiatric comorbidities, which may affect the illness course. Aims We aimed to assess the past and current psychiatric comorbidities in schizophrenia patients treated with clozapine, and study their relationship with clinical variables. Methods Consecutive 122 outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia receiving clozapine were included. Information about past and current clinical status were gathered through a clinical interview and review of the medical records, along with laboratory test results. Patients were assessed with structured clinical interview for Axis-I Disorders for DSM-IV, Clinical Global Impression Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Calgary Depression Scale, Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), Panic and Agoraphobia Scale (PAS), WHO-Disability Assessment Schedule-II. Results There was a significant decrease in the diagnosis of depression, alcohol and substance use disorder, number of suicide attempts, and an increase in the diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) after clozapine initiation. Clozapine related de novo OCD appeared in 48.4% of the patients, and there was a positive correlation between Y-BOCS total scores and clozapine dose and plasma levels. In the de novo OCD group, compulsion scores were higher than obsession scores with checking most prevalent among compulsions. Total PANSS, Y-BOCS, PASscores were positively correlated withtotal disability score. Conclusions Clozapine seems to decrease comorbid depression, alcohol and substance use and number of suicide attempts and increase OCD. Assessment and treatment of psychiatric comorbidities in clozapine using schizophrenia patients is vital to decrease disability. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".