A comparative, single-blind, randomized study on quetiapine and aripiperazole augmentation in treatment of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic psychiatric disorder, of unknown etiology, that affects 2.5% of the population. An appropriate therapeutic response to conventional treatment is seen. Some studies use augmentative treatment by antipsychotics, glutamatergic, lithium, buspirone, and others agents to improve the therapeutic response. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole and quetiapine as augmentative treatments in patients with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) refractory OCD. The OCD patients were initially treated for 12 weeks with a SSRI. If after 12 weeks their Yale–Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score was more than 16, they were randomly assigned to either the aripiprazole or the quetiapine augmentation group for an additional 12 weeks. There were no significant differences in age, sex, education, marital status, or score of Y-BOCS and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) between groups (p > 0.05) at the outset of the study. Significant differences were noted after 1 month when compared with results at 2, 3, and 4 months in both groups (p < 0.001). Both quetiapine and aripiprazole may be effective and well-tolerated augmentative agents in the treatment of SSRI-refractory OCD. Because of positive results, aripiprazole may be considered more effective and may have a more rapid onset in terms of therapeutic response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".