A comparative, single-blind, randomized study on quetiapine and aripiperazole augmentation in treatment of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it