MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410564375 · doi:10.1002/hup.70006

Clozapine Once‐Versus Multiple‐Daily Dosing Regimen: A Single‐Center, Retrospective, Cross‐Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4410564375 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jing Ding, Suo Zhang, Huan Xing, Luyao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experimental · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosingMedicineClozapineRegimenAdverse effectRetrospective cohort studyPopulationInternal medicineSingle CenterSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Due to its short plasma half-life, clozapine is typically prescribed in a divided dosing regimen. Although once-daily dosing has proven effective in countries such as Japan, South Korea, Canada, and the United States, its adoption in real-world clinical practice in China remains unclear. This study aimed to compare patient characteristics, psychiatric symptoms, side effects, and plasma clozapine concentrations between once-daily and divided dosing regimens, and to determine the dosage required to achieve plasma levels of 350-600 ng/mL in the Chinese population. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study at Xi'an Mental Health Center, China, collecting data on clozapine-treated patients from March 2019 to March 2021. RESULTS: Most patients (80% of 198) in the Chinese cohort followed a divided-dose regimen in clinical practice. In the once-daily dosing group, the average plasma clozapine concentration was 158.75 ng/mL, with only 8% of patients reaching the therapeutic window. Conversely, patients on a divided dosing regimen had significantly higher plasma concentrations, averaging 373.34 ng/mL, with 28% within the therapeutic window. The psychiatric symptom remission rate did not differ significantly between the once-daily and divided-dosing groups (50.05% vs. 52.72%, p = 0.718); however, the divided-dosing group experienced a greater variety of adverse effects. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that patients on multiple daily doses require a total daily clozapine dose of 150-250 mg to achieve the target plasma concentration, corresponding to a clozapine concentration-to-dose ratio of 1.4-2.4. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese clinicians generally adhere to a divided dosing schedule for clozapine when the daily dose exceeds 50 mg. Further prospective longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate whether once-daily dosing regimens can improve clinical outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Psychopharmacology Clinical and ExperimentalSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207