The effect of vortioxetine on anhedonia in patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Anhedonia is a common symptom of depression, but is also a negative symptom of schizophrenia. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of vortioxetine on anhedonia in patients with schizophrenia. Methods A total of 120 patients with schizophrenia in remission who met inclusion criteria were randomized 1:1 by the envelope method into intervention and control groups. All participants in both groups were divided into three subgroups based on the antipsychotic therapy they were receiving (olanzapine, risperidone, or aripiprazole). Vortioxetine was administered to those in the intervention group at a fixed dose of 10 mg per day. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), and Chapman Scale for Social and Physical Anhedonia (CSPA) were administered. The study lasted 12 weeks. Participants were assessed twice: At baseline and at the end of the study. Six participants dropped out, with 114 completing the trial. Findings Vortioxetine treatment had a significant effect on level of physical anhedonia. The treatment interaction was also statistically significant, but with a relatively small effect (F = 3.17, P < .05; η2 = .061). Vortioxetine treatment had a particularly strong effect on the level of social anhedonia. The interaction between the treatment and the type of antipsychotics was also statistically significant with a small effect (F = 5.04, P < 0. 01; η2 = .091). Conclusion The combination of olanzapine and vortioxetine was found to be the best option to reduce symptoms of social and physical anhedonia in these patients with remitted schizophrenia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".