Clinical Usefulness of Amisulpride Add-on Therapy in Schizophrenia Patients without Treatment Response to Second-generation Antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The response to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia is still unsatisfactory.Therefore, augmentation with other antipsychotics is common in clinical situations.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the improvement of psychiatric symptoms and side effects after amisulpride add-on therapy.Methods: Forty patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder without treatment response to second-generation antipsychotics were included in this study.Psychotic symptoms were evaluated using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Korean version of Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks after the addition of amisulpride.Results: Among the 29 subjects who completed the 8-week study, 34.5% were responders according to PANSS total score.At week 8, the mean positive (p ＜ 0.001), negative (p ＜ 0.001), general (p ＜ 0.001), and total (p ＜ 0.001) PANSS scores and CDSS scores (p = 0.002) showed significant improvement compared to baseline.There was no increase in extrapyramidal side effects according to Simpson Angus Scale (p = 0.379) and Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (p = 0.070) and no weight gain (p = 0.308) after the add-on treatment.Conclusion: The addition of amisulpride for schizophrenia patients without therapeutic response to second-generation antipsychotics is considered an effective and safe treatment.This study's results suggested that augmentation of second-generation antipsychotics with amisulpride could be a useful option for patients with schizophrenia unresponsive to second-generation antipsychotics.Further studies investigating the efficacy of amisulpride add-on therapy using placebo control are necessary to confirm these results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".