Improved insomnia is one pathway underlying the anti‐suicidal properties of clozapine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insomnia is common in schizophrenia and associated with suicide. Clozapine has anti-suicidal properties and beneficial effects on sleep. Whether effects on insomnia mediate the anti-suicidal properties of clozapine remains unclear. METHODS: In n = 76 patients from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of intervention effectiveness schizophrenia trial using a within-subjects design, we investigated whether improvement in terminal insomnia was associated with improvement in suicidal ideation (SI) after treatment with non-clozapine antipsychotics, and then after treatment with clozapine, using binary logistic regression. Terminal insomnia and SI over the past 2 weeks were assessed before and after both non-clozapine antipsychotic and clozapine treatment with the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. RESULTS: There was no association between improved terminal insomnia and resolution of SI after treatment with non-clozapine antipsychotics (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.0-9.0, p = 0.41). In the same patients, improved terminal insomnia was associated with resolution of SI after clozapine treatment (OR = 14.6, 95% CI 1.7-129.2, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Improved terminal insomnia is associated with improved SI following clozapine treatment. Findings warrant replication in a larger sample with standard instruments in the assessment of insomnia and suicide, but suggest beneficial effects on sleep as a mediator of the anti-suicidal properties of clozapine. Future mechanistic studies are also needed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".