MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976710873 · doi:10.4088/pcc.13l01570

Capgras’ Syndrome in an Elderly Patient With Dementia

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

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS Disorders · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from 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in which a person holds a delusion that a close relative like a spouse or parent, a friend, or even an object has been replaced by an identical looking imposter or replica.2 The disorder is classified as a delusional misidentification syndrome that involves persistent alterations in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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Primary Care Companion For CNS DisordersSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207