MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415356847 · doi:10.5498/wjp.v15.i10.110968

Safety and efficacy of different initial doses of lurasidone in the schizophrenia treatment: A multi-center, randomized, open-label study

2025· article· en· W4415356847 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qi Liu, Mincai Qian, Zhifen Liu, Fang Dong, Dengtang Liu, Mingli Li, Yu-Ping Ning, Xiaoping Wang, Tiebang Liu, Qi Wu, Tao Li, Xin Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeking University
KeywordsLurasidoneDiscontinuationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Adverse effectSafety profile

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Schizophrenia, a complex group of mental disorders, is primarily managed with antipsychotic medications. The safety and efficacy of different initial doses of lurasidone for acute schizophrenia remain uncertain, particularly concerning discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs). AIM To compare the safety of two initial doses of lurasidone for the treatment of acute schizophrenia in Chinese patients. METHODS This 6-week, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial allocated participants to receive either 40 mg/day or 80 mg/day lurasidone initially, with dose adjustment allowed after a one-week fixed-dose period. Safety assessments included the primary endpoint of discontinuation due to AEs, as well as evaluations of AEs, weight changes, and laboratory parameters. Efficacy assessments included responder rates and changes in scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. RESULTS Among 197 participants, no significant difference was found in discontinuation rate due to AEs between groups (3.03% vs 5.10%, P = 0.707). Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 64.6% and 71.4% of participants in the 40 mg/day and 80 mg/day initiation groups, respectively. Response rates at weeks 1 and 2 showed no statistically significant differences. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in PANSS total, Clinical Global Impression-Severity, and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia scores from baseline (all P < 0.01). Notably, the 80 mg/day initiation group showed greater improvement in the PANSS positive subscale score at visits 1 and 2 compared to the 40 mg/day initiation group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION Initial doses of 40 mg/day and 80 mg/day lurasidone are safe and effective for acute schizophrenia, with no significant increase in AEs-related discontinuation rate at the higher dose.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207