The effect of baseline antipsychotic status on the 12‐month outcome in initially stabilized patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recently, the usefulness of antipsychotics has been challenged. The aim of the study was to measure the real-life effect of antipsychotic treatment on remission and recovery rates in already stabilized patients with schizophrenia after 1 year. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 133 stabilized patients with schizophrenia (77 males and 56 females; aged 33.55 ± 11.22 years). The assessment included testing at baseline and after 1 year with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Calgary Depression Scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, UKU, Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale, and General Assessment of Functioning. RESULTS: More patients were on antipsychotics after 1 year (increase by 16.45%). There was an increase in the remission by 75% and in the recovery rate by 66%. It was not possible to predict the outcome on the basis of baseline variables. DISCUSSION: There is an accumulating beneficial effect of antipsychotic treatment over a 12-month period; early lack of remission is not prognostic of a poor outcome. There might be different neurobiological mechanisms underlying acute and sustained response. Both remission and recovery are difficult to achieve for patients with schizophrenia and characterize only a minority of patients. Only a very small minority of patients (4.5%) that is impossible to identify a priori would do well without off antipsychotics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".