Vortioxetine on Cognition in Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the wide implications of cognitive impairment for prognosis and outcome in schizophrenia, the research on pharmacological approaches aimed at addressing dysfunctional cognition has been extensive; nevertheless, there are no currently available licensed drugs, and the evidence in this field is still unimpressive. Vortioxetine is a multimodal antidepressant, which has been proposed as a suitable treatment option for cognitive symptoms in depression. METHODS: Twenty schizophrenia outpatients (mean age ± SD, 40.7 ±10.6 years) on stable clozapine treatment, assessed by neuropsychological (Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Verbal Fluency, and Stroop task) and psychodiagnostic instruments (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia), received vortioxetine at the single daily dose of 10 mg/d until week 12; the dose was increased at 20 mg/d afterward, and this dosage was maintained unchanged until week 24. A physical examination, electrocardiogram with QTc measurement, and laboratory tests were also performed. RESULTS: Vortioxetine supplementation significantly improved Stroop test (P = 0.013) at week 12 and Stroop test (P = 0.031) and Semantic Fluency (P = 0.002) at end point. Moreover, a significantly reduction of PANSS domains "positive" (P = 0.019) at week 12 and of PANSS domains positive (P = 0.019) and total score (P = 0.041) and of depressive symptoms (Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, P = 0.032) at end point. There was no significant change in clinical, metabolic, and safety parameters, and no subject spontaneously reported adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations (open design, lack of a control group, small sample size, and short intervention period), our findings suggest for the first time that vortioxetine augmentation of clozapine may be a promising therapeutic strategy for addressing cognitive deficits 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".