Early improvements of individual symptoms as a predictor of treatment response to asenapine in patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim It is well accepted that early improvement with antipsychotics predicts subsequent response in patients with schizophrenia. However, no study has examined the contribution of individual symptoms rather than overall symptom severity as the predictors. Thus, we aimed to detect individual symptoms whose improvements could predict subsequent response in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with asenapine and examine whether a prediction model with individual symptoms would be superior to a model using overall symptom severity. Methods This study analyzed a dataset including 532 patients with schizophrenia enrolled in a 6‐week double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized trial of asenapine. Response to asenapine was defined as a ≥30% decrease in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline to week 6. Stepwise logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations among response and PANSS total/individual item score improvements at week 1 or week 2. Results Response was associated with early improvement in the following PANSS items: disturbance of volition, active social avoidance, poor impulse control at week 1; and active social avoidance, poor attention, lack of judgment and insight at week 2. Prediction accuracy was almost compatible between the model with individual symptoms and the model with PANSS total score both at weeks 1 and 2 (Nagelkerke R 2 : .51, .42 and .55, .54, respectively). Conclusion Early improvement in negative symptoms, poor attention and impulse control, and lack of insight, in particular predicted subsequent treatment response in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with asenapine as accurately as prediction based on overall symptom severity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".