New and emerging treatments for symptomatic tardive dyskinesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review is to assess new, emerging, and experimental treatment options for tardive dyskinesia (TD). The methods to obtain relevant studies for review included a MEDLINE search and a review of studies in English, along with checking reference lists of articles. The leading explanatory models of TD development include dopamine receptor supersensitivity, GABA depletion, cholinergic deficiency, neurotoxicity, oxidative stress, changes in synaptic plasticity, and defective neuroadaptive signaling. As such, a wide range of treatment options are available. To provide a complete summary of choices we review atypical antipsychotics along with resveratrol, botulinum toxin, Ginkgo biloba, tetrabenazine, clonazepam, melatonin, essential fatty acids, zonisamide, levetiracetam, branched-chain amino acids, drug combinations, and invasive surgical treatments. There is currently no US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for TD; however, prudent use of atypical antipsychotics with routine monitoring remain the cornerstone of therapy, with experimental treatment options available for further management.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it