Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with olanzapine and amisulpride for treatment-refractory schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment-refractory schizophrenia (TRS), accounting for approximately 30% of all schizophrenia cases, has poor treatment response and prognosis despite treatment with antipsychotic drugs. AIM: To analyze the therapeutic effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with olanzapine (OLZ) and amisulpride (AMI) for TRS and its influence on the patient's cognitive function. METHODS: This study enrolled 114 TRS patients who received treatment at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between July 2019 and July 2022. In addition to the basic OLZ + AMI therapy, 54 cases of the control group (Con group) received modified electroconvulsive therapy, while 60 cases of the research group (Res group) received rTMS. Data on therapeutic effectiveness, safety (incidence of drowsiness, headache, nausea, vomiting, or memory impairment), Positive and Negative Symptom Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, and Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale were collected from both cohorts for comparative analyses. RESULTS: The Res group elicited a higher overall response rate and better safety profile when compared with the Con group. Additionally, a significant reduction was observed in the post-treatment Positive and Negative Symptom Scale and Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale scores of the Res group, presenting lower scores than those of the Con group. Furthermore, a significant increase in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale score was reported in the Res group, with higher scores than those of the Con group. CONCLUSION: The treatment of TRS with rTMS and OLZ + AMI is effective and safe. Moreover, it can alleviate the patients' mental symptoms, improve their cognitive function and quality of life, and has a high clinical application value.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".