A systematic review of neuroimaging studies of clozapine-resistant schizophrenia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to review neuroimaging studies comparing clozapine-resistant schizophrenia patients with clozapine-responding patients, and with first-line antipsychotic responding (FLR) patients. A total of 19 studies including 6 longitudinal studies were identified. Imaging techniques comprised computerized tomography (CT, n = 3), structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, n = 7), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS, n = 5), functional MRI (n = 1), single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT, n = 3) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI, n = 1). The most consistent finding was hypo-frontality in the clozapine-resistant group compared with the clozapine-responding group with possible differences in frontal-striatal-basal ganglia circuitry as well as the GABA level between the two treatment-resistant groups. Additional statistically significant findings were reported when comparing clozapine-resistant patients with the FLR group, including lower cortical thickness and brain volume of multiple brain regions as well as lower Glx/Cr level in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Both treatment-resistant groups were found to have extensive differences in neurobiological features in comparison with the FLR group. Overall results suggested treatment-resistant schizophrenia is likely to be a neurobiological distinct type of the illness. Clozapine-resistant and clozapine-responding schizophrenia are likely to have both shared and distinct neurobiological features. However, conclusions from existing studies are limited, and future multi-center collaborative studies are required with a consensus clinical definition of patient samples, multimodal imaging tools, and longitudinal study designs.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it