Update and Recommendations for the Use of Antipsychotics in Early-Onset Psychoses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review was undertaken of studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic medications for the management of psychosis in children and adolescents. All identified published and unpublished studies from 1996 onward were included for review. The search located one randomized control trial, seven open-label trials, six retrospective chart reviews, and nine case reports. The studies assessed the use of haloperidol, clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine in the management of psychosis in children and adolescents. Most studies reported reasonable treatment response; however, extrapyramidal side effects, sedation, and weight gain are concerning. This points to the need for appropriate baseline assessments prior to initiating treatment with these agents. Particular attention should be given to assessment of the extrapyramidal system as well as to baseline weight, lipid profile, and blood glucose. Further study is needed to refine the use of antipsychotic medications in children and adolescents in order to minimize adverse effects while conferring an optimum therapeutic response. The importance of instituting effective early treatment in youth with psychoses is an important goal that may serve to lessen the long-term morbidity of the illness.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".