A naturalistic, 9-month follow-up, comparing olanzapine and conventional antipsychotics on sexual function and hormonal profile for males with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Second generation antipsychotics have less influence on prolactin levels than conventional antipsychotics (CA), which are commonly associated with sexual dysfunction and hyperprolactinaemia.However, only a few studies have been conducted assessing these newer antipsychotics and sexual function/dysfunction.The aim of this study is to evaluate the sexual function and hormonal profile of male schizophrenic patients taking olanzapine or CA.Sixty-three inpatients with acute episodes of schizophrenia were randomly assigned to take either olanzapine, or go on conventional antipsychotic treatment.The Dickson-Glazer sexual functioning questionnaire was used to assess sexual functioning where serum prolactin, luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, total testosterone, free testosterone, and sex hormone-binding globulin concentrations were measured.All measurements were taken on discharge from the inpatient unit (baseline), and again at 3 and 9 months after discharge.Prolactin levels in the olanzapine group decreased more rapidly and were significantly lower than in the CA group after 3 months (12.1 ± 6.3 µg/l, p = 0.01; 18.1 ± 11.2 µg/l, p = 0.564, respectively).After nine months, there was a tendency toward normal levels in both groups, and the frequency of sexual complaints did not differ between the groups.This study showed no difference between olanzapine and conventional antipsychotics regarding sexual complaints in the treatment of schizophrenia, but did show a difference in the hormone level normalization rate.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".