Augmentation of Clozapine Due to Inadequate Treatment Response in Schizophrenia: Comparison of Patients with Augmented and Non-augmented Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clozapine is considered to be a gold standard antipsychotic in treatment resistant schizophrenia. This study aims to investigate clozapine augmentation METHODS utilized in schizophrenia and compare the sociodemographic characteristics, clinical features and remission states of patients whose treatments are augmented and not. METHOD: This study included 122 outpatients diagnosed with DSMIV schizophrenia. Patients were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, Panic Agoraphobia Scale, Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. The remission state of the patients was assessed utilizing the Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group criteria for schizophrenia. RESULTS: Combined antipsychotic drug use was the most prevalent method utilized for clozapine augmentation. Patients on augmentation treatment were on higher daily clozapine doses and their remission rates were lower. In addition, the severity of psychopathology related with schizophrenia and comorbid symptoms, the level of functioning and disability were worse in this particular patient group. History of antipsychotic combination use prior to clozapine was found to predict the future use of clozapine augmentation. CONCLUSION: Adding a second antipsychotic seems to be the most common method of augmenting clozapine treatment in schizophrenia. The group of patients whose clozapine treatment is augmented appears to represent a "more difficult to treat" patient group before clozapine is initiated.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".