“The Efficacy and Safety of Aripiprazole and Paliperidone 1 and 3-Month Long-Acting Preparations During The Maintenance of Schizophrenia in Clinical Practice”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To our knowledge; this is the first study that compared the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole 1-month and paliperidone 1-month and paliperidone 3-month long-acting forms preparations as well as plasma drug levels during the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in the real world. Method: In our study, subjects were evaluated every month for four months with relevant psychiatric measures and plasma drug levels. Follow-up days were determined as days 0, 30, 60, and 90. Plasma drug levels of the treatments were analyzed by using LC/MS-MS. Results: No superiority was observed between the groups regarding PANSS positive and general psychopathology (p>0.05). It was observed that PANSS negative and total scores were statistically lower in the aripiprazole once-monthly group than in the paliperidone 3-month preparations (p<0.05). We observed that Quality of Life Scale interpersonal relations scores, the aripiprazole 1-month group exhibited higher scores than both of the paliperidone groups. Aripiprazole 1-month group scored higher than the paliperidone 1-month group in the intrapsychic foundations subscale (p<0.05). No significant difference was observed between extrapyramidal adverse effect, akathisia, and insight levels among the three groups (p>0.05). Aripiprazole 1- month group scored significantly lower than both paliperidone groups in the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (p<0.001). Aripiprazole metabolite was negatively correlated with depressive symptoms in the Calgary Depression Assessment Scale in Schizophrenia (p<0.05) and the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (p<0.05). Conclusion: Aripiprazole once-monthly showed superiority in efficacy aspects to PP3M but not PP1M and similar safety with both paliperidone formulations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".