Retrospective Review of Use of Adjunctive Psychostimulants in Patients with Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjunctive psychostimulants have been proposed as a potential treatment option for the management of cognitive and/or negative symptoms of schizophrenia. METHODS: The present study is a retrospective review of use of adjunctive psychostimulants among outpatients enrolled in our tertiary Schizophrenia Program between 2014 and 2019. We assessed response to treatment, adverse effects, and the impact of various clinical factors on treatment outcome. RESULTS: Of the 77 (out of 1,300) participants prescribed psychostimulants during the study period, 42.22% had chart-based evidence of significant improvement, 27.77% had minimal improvement, and 25.55% reported no change. The majority (61.9%) demonstrated improvement in attention, concentration, and/or other cognitive symptoms. Approximately one-third of cases had evidence of emergence of psychosis. Of the factors assessed, comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was associated with an increased likelihood of response, and higher doses of stimulants were associated with likelihood of emergence of psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive psychostimulants could be a potential treatment consideration to address cognitive deficits in selected 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".