A Chart Audit Study of Clozapine Utilization in Early Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to document the treatment trajectories and clozapine use in first-episode psychosis patients and to document the underlying reasons for using or not using clozapine in patients not achieving psychosis remission. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart audit of patients aged 18 to 30 years having DSM-5 diagnoses of schizophrenia spectrum psychotic disorders treated in 3 Canadian early intervention programs for psychosis. The severity of the patient's illness (using the Clinical Global Impression Severity [CGI-S] scale) and remission of psychosis were rated before and after each antipsychotic trial. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven patients were included in the study. There were 19.7% patients exposed to clozapine after an average of 2.4 antipsychotic trials and a mean delay of 470.8 days. There were 75.9% patients who improved their CGI-S score (mean improvement, 2.5) after the clozapine trial and 62.1% achieved a CGI-S score ≤3. Full remission of psychosis on clozapine was achieved in 69.0% of the patients. Clozapine was successfully used for some patients with a nonadherent profile in our sample (eg, personality disorder, substance use disorder). Although the mean duration of clozapine trials during the observation period was 688.6 days, no patient discontinued clozapine because of adherence issues. CONCLUSIONS: Clozapine use in these early intervention programs were at a rate consistent to what is expected from the literature and allowed a majority of patients to achieve remission of psychosis and to experience a robust improvement of severity of illness.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".