The effect of add-on memantine on positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia: a doubleblind, randomized, controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
treatment of schizophrenia, they don’t adequately address residual positive, negative and depressive symptoms. The aim of the present study is to assess the effect of adjunctive memantine treatment on positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia. METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted in Noor Hospital, Isfahan, Iran, 2013-2014; 32 patients in maintenance treatment were included in each group, using block sampling; inclusion criteria were age 18- 65 years, normal intellectual ability, being diagnosed with schizophrenia for the past two years, being treated with fixed doses of atypical antipsychotic for at least three months before randomization. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, breast feeding, having received electro-convulsive therapy in the past two weeks, drug or substance abuse and dependence, psychiatric/ neurological comorbidities, and sensitivity to memantine. Patients in the intervention group were treated with memantine plus atypical antipsychotic; while in the control group, patients received placebo and atypical antipsychotic. Patients were assessed by Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) initially and every four weeks to the end of the 12th week. Data were analyzed in SPSS 17.0 using t-test, chi square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Positive symptoms (p=0.028), negative symptoms (0.004), general psychopathology (p<0.001), depressive symptoms (p<0.001) and total symptom severity (p<0.001) decreased significantly in patients receiving add-on memantine. CONCLUSION: This study shows that, add-on memantine would be helpful, in the adjunctive treatment of depressive, positive, negative and general symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".