MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1976710873 · doi:10.4088/pcc.13l01570

Capgras’ Syndrome in an Elderly Patient With Dementia

2014· article· en· W1976710873 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie Sutton, Vedavani Tiruveedhula, Ujjwala Jain, Ashish Sharma

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS Disorders · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueFace Recognition and Perception
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDementiaMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: Capgras’ syndrome is an eponym named after the French psychiatrist Joseph Capgras, who first described the disorder in 1923 in a French woman complaining of seeing doubles or imposters of her husband.1 It is a disorder in which a person holds a delusion that a close relative like a spouse or parent, a friend, or even an object has been replaced by an identical looking imposter or replica.2 The disorder is classified as a delusional misidentification syndrome that involves persistent alterations in entities of personal significance.3 These alterations are classified in the DSM-IV and ICD-10 under unspecified persistent delusional disorders.4 There is a prevalence of 0.12% in the general population, and the disorder is seen more frequently in women, blacks, and schizophrenics.5 Capgras’ syndrome has a high (15%) incidence in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia5 and has an incidence between 2% and 30% in those with Alzheimer’s disease.6,7 It can present in acute, transient, or chronic form. Described here is a case report of Capgras’ syndrome in an elderly patient with dementia. Case report. Mr A, an 80-year-old white man, was brought to the hospital with the complaint of increasing confusion. His confusion had started 1 month ago when he woke up after a nap and walked up to his wife and asked, “Who are you?” He asked their children why this woman made him dinner. This delusion, consistent with Capgras’ syndrome, fluctuated on and off for the next month. Mr A also had visual hallucinations of seeing his wife in the house when she was in fact in a different room or in the same room but at a different spot. This symptom was consistent with doppelganger hallucinations. While in the hospital, Mr A had visual hallucinations of helicopters and thought he had a conversation with a man who did not exist. At one point, he became aggressive and tried to strangle a nurse. Mr A had no previous psychiatric history. His past neurologic history was a traumatic brain injury at age 13 years when he was hit in the head with an ax. His score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment was 19/30. An electroencephalogram was nonsignificant. Urine analysis, chest x-ray, and vitamin B12, folic acid, and thyroid-stimulating hormone levels were all within normal limits. Treponema palladium antibody, antiperoxidase antibody, and paraneoplastic antibodies were negative. A lumbar puncture was negative for fungal, viral, and bacterial infection but did show elevated protein levels. Computed tomography scan of the head showed chronic small vessel ischemic changes and moderate parenchymal loss but no acute changes. The neurology consultant diagnosed Mr A with unspecified dementia. Mr A was started on quetiapine 12.5 mg twice a day in the hospital and showed improvement in his psychotic symptoms within the next few days. He was discharged home on quetiapine 12.5 mg twice per day and 25 mg at night. Capgras’ syndrome presents at younger ages in conditions other than neurodegenerative diseases (52 vs 72 years), which include schizophrenia, major depressive disorder with psychosis, paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and cerebrovascular disease.8 Evidence shows that Capgras’ syndrome is also associated with traumatic brain injuries, cerebrovascular accidents, multiple sclerosis, dementia including Alzheimer’s disease, and Lewy body dementia.8 Diagnostic workup usually includes electroencephalogram findings, head computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and neuropsychological testing.9 Treatment has ranged from typical antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics to even antidepressants. In the past, pimozide was used successfully.10,11 But, more recently, atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine have been prescribed to decrease Capgras’ delusions.12 Two case reports showed positive response to mirtazapine.13,14 Prognosis relates to the etiology of the cause. If the cause is treatable, such as an infection or a depressive episode, the prognosis is more favorable.15 Patients with schizophrenia have a poorer prognosis.15 In patients with dementia, such as Mr A, the prognosis is less understood. Medications can alleviate the symptoms, but relapses may occur with the progression of the neurodegeneration.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,868
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,410

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,221 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS DisordersMême sujetFace Recognition and PerceptionTravaux en français237 207