MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210609640 · doi:10.1089/cap.2021.0092

Clozapine for Management of Childhood and Adolescent-Onset Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4210609640 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClozapineObservational studyMedicineOlanzapinePsychiatryPediatricsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Randomized controlled trialHypersalivationInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Schizophrenia at a young age deserves investigation because of the greater severity and burden of illness on individuals and health care than its adult onset. For this study, we included both childhood-onset schizophrenia and early-onset schizophrenia. We used the common term “childhood and adolescent-onset schizophrenia (CAOS)” for either type. This systematic review provides an overview of the clinical use, efficacy, and safety of clozapine treatment in managing CAOS. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), open-label studies (OLSs), review articles, meta-analytic and observational studies. Our literature search resulted in 1242 search results. After the title, abstract, and full article review, 18 studies qualified (double-blind RCTs n = 4; OLS n = 4; observational studies n = 7; case reports n = 3). Results: Clozapine use in CAOS was generally well tolerated and not associated with any fatalities. Clozapine use in the short term (6 weeks) and long term (2–9 years) was superior in efficacy than other antipsychotics in CAOS management. Improvement in overall symptoms was maintained during long-term follow-up over the years in OLSs. Clozapine appeared to have a favorable clinical response and shorter hospital stays. Sedation and hypersalivation were commonly reported (90%), constipation was next in frequency (13%–50%). Neutropenia was seen in 6%–15% of cases and agranulocytosis (<0.1%). Although weight gain was common (up to 64%), followed by metabolic changes (8%–22%), treatment-onset diabetes was less frequent (<6%). Akathisia, tachycardia, and blood pressure changes were less commonly seen. Conclusions: Limited studies indicate that clozapine is a safe and efficacious option for CAOS management. We need large-scale and well-designed long-term RCTs for the use of clozapine in the management of CAOS.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it