Paliperidone Compared with Haloperidol on the Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia: A Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jie Zhong,1,2,* Hong Zhu,1,2,* Dongqing Yin,1,2 Yanzhe Ning,1,2 Sisi Zheng,1,2 Yanbo Zhang,3 Hongxiao Jia1,2 1The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders & Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 2Advanced Innovation Center for Human Brain Protection, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Yanbo ZhangDepartment of psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Edmonton, CanadaEmail yanbo.zhang@usask.caHongxiao JiaThe National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders & Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86-010-58303065Email jhxlj@ccmu.edu.cnPurpose: Theory of mind (ToM) is an important part of social cognitive function and is associated with medial prefrontal cortical (mPFC) activity. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of paliperidone in improving ToM task performance in patients with schizophrenia compared with haloperidol.Patients and Methods: This study was a single-center, single-blinded (assessor), parallel-group randomized clinical trial of patients with schizophrenia randomized to paliperidone or haloperidol. ToM was assessed at weeks 0, 8, 12, and 16 using the first-order belief, higher-order belief, faux-pas, and Reading the Mind in the Eyes tests. The primary outcome was the change in the ToM performance scores from baseline to after 16 weeks of treatment.Results: The participants received paliperidone (n = 29) or haloperidol (n = 31). For the first-order belief task, there were no between-group differences (P > 0.05) but time differences in both groups (P < 0.05). For the higher-order belief task, there were no between-group differences (P > 0.05), but there were time differences in both groups (P < 0.05) and a time×group interaction in the paliperidone group only (P < 0.05). For the faux-pas task, there was a difference between groups at week 16 (P < 0.05), and the improvement in time was significant for the paliperidone group only (P < 0.05). For the Reading the Mind in the Eyes task, there was an improvement over time for the paliperidone group only (P < 0.05). Safety was manageable in both groups.Conclusion: Paliperidone treatment might be more effective than haloperidol in improving ToM task performance in schizophrenia.Trial Registration: chictr.org.cn_identifier ChiCTR-IPR-15007635.Keywords: schizophrenia, theory of mind, longitudinal study, paliperidone, haloperidol
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".