Vortioxetine as adjunctive therapy to risperidone for treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Vortioxetine, a novel antidepressant, may be an interesting candidate for adjunctive therapy of schizophrenia. Our primary objective was to investigate the effect of vortioxetine on negative symptoms, with the assessment of positive, general psychopathology and total symptoms as our secondary goal. METHODS: This was an eight-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial, in which 78 inpatients with chronic schizophrenia were stabilised with risperidone (4-6 mg/day) for two months before being assigned to adjunctive vortioxetine (10 mg b.i.d.) or placebo. The patients were assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale during the study course. All participants had a PANSS negative symptoms subscale score of ⩾16 at baseline. Sixty-eight patients completed the trial. RESULTS: Vortioxetine improved the negative symptoms score as the primary outcome and total PANSS score as a secondary outcome significantly better than placebo from baseline to end point at week 8, accompanied by significant time × treatment interactions and effect sizes (negative symptoms: mean difference (95% confidence interval (CI)) = -1.82 (-2.73 to -0.92); total scores: mean difference (95% CI) = -2.09 (-3.16 to -1.01). No significant difference was detected for changes in positive symptoms score or PANSS general psychopathology score as the other secondary outcomes from baseline to end point between the two treatment arms. The incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide evidence for the therapeutic effect of vortioxetine on negative symptoms as an adjunctive to treatment with antipsychotics 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".