The impact of aripiprazole on neurocognitive function in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: A comparison with olanzapine and non-antipsychotic treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) is often managed with antipsychotic medications, but their effects on neurocognitive performance and clinical outcomes remain insufficiently explored. This study investigates the association between aripiprazole and olanzapine use and cognitive and clinical outcomes in CHR individuals, compared to those receiving no antipsychotic treatment. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 127 participants from the Shanghai At Risk for Psychosis (SHARP) cohort, categorized into three groups: aripiprazole, olanzapine, and no antipsychotic treatment. Neurocognitive performance was evaluated using the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB), while clinical symptoms were assessed through the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS) at baseline, 8 weeks, and one year. RESULTS: The non-medicated group demonstrated greater improvements in cognitive performance, clinical symptoms, and functional outcomes compared to the medicated groups. Among the antipsychotic groups, aripiprazole was associated with better visual learning outcomes than olanzapine. Improvements in neurocognition correlated significantly with clinical symptom relief and overall functional gains at follow-up assessments. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest potential associations between antipsychotic use and cognitive outcomes in CHR populations while recognizing that observed differences may reflect baseline illness severity rather than medication effects alone. Aripiprazole may offer specific advantages over olanzapine, underscoring the importance of individualized risk-benefit evaluations in treatment planning. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish causality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".