Hyoscine for clozapine-induced hypersalivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clozapine is the only evidence-based antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, it has considerable side effects, limiting its usability and reducing patients' adherence. One of the most common and distressing side effects is hypersalivation, which can be debilitating, stigmatizing and potentially dangerous through its association with aspiration pneumonia. There is a paucity of evidence guiding possible treatment strategies for hypersalivation. This study aims to examine the efficacy of hyoscine (scopolamine) for clozapine-induced hypersalivation. Fourteen inpatients diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, treated with clozapine and suffering from hypersalivation were randomized to receive hyoscine 0.3 mg and placebo daily for 4 weeks each in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial. The primary outcome was improvement in the Toronto Nocturnal Hypersalivation Scale. The secondary outcomes were change in the mass of the pillowcase, anxiety, depression and quality of life. Hypersalivation improved significantly with hyoscine over placebo when measured by the Toronto Nocturnal Hypersalivation Scale (odds ratio=0.21, 95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.28, P<0.001). No significant difference was observed in any of the secondary outcomes. This study showed a beneficial effect of hyoscine over placebo for clozapine-induced hypersalivation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".