Comparison of clinical characteristics between patients on clozapine treatment with those taking combined antipsychotics in schizophrenia considering the impact of OCD comorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study was to compare clinical characteristics between the patients with schizophrenia on clozapine treatment with those under combination of long-acting injectable and oral antipsychotics (combined treatment), and the secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) comorbidity on the clinical variables. METHODS: The patients with schizophrenia applied at Outpatient Psychiatry Clinic of the University between October 2017 and March 2018 taking clozapine or combined treatment were included in the study. The participants were administered Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impressions Scale, Scale for the Assessment of Positive and Negative Symptoms (SAPS/SANS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), Turkish version of Schedule for Assessing the three components of insight (SAI), and Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). RESULTS: Patients on clozapine had higher Y-BOCS, BPRS, SANS, CDSS scores, and lower GAF scores compared to those taking combined antipsychotics (p<0.05). OCD comorbidity rate was 13% in the combination therapy group and 36% in clozapine users. The SAPS scores were higher but CDSS scores were lower in clozapine users with the presence of OCD comorbidity (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Clozapine and combined therapy groups differed widely by the clinical characteristics of the patients in this study. Both groups showed a high OCD comorbidity rate in this study and OCD comorbidity should be considered when schizophrenia treatment is initiated to obtain more satisfactory results. Furthermore, patients on clozapine seem to show a different relationship with OCD comorbidity compared to those under combined 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".