MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Aripiprazole in a Patient With Multiple Sclerosis Presenting With Paranoid Psychosis

2010· review· en· W2017122099 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Muzyk, Eric J. Christopher, Jane P. Gagliardi, David Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Practice · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAripiprazoleParanoid schizophreniaPsychosisPsychiatryMedicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Multiple sclerosisPediatricsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system (CNS). A significant percentage of MS patients will develop neuropsychiatric symptoms during their lifetime; affective symptoms are most common, but psychosis is reported in approximately 1% of patients. Atypical antipsychotics are commonly prescribed for treatment of psychotic symptoms and a recent case report demonstrated the benefit of oral aripiprazole 10 mg in treating paranoid-hallucinatory psychosis in a patient with MS. We report on a 46-year-old African-American female diagnosed with MS who was admitted with delusional and paranoid behavior. She had no history of mental illness and had a negative urine drug screen on admission. Following 3 days of treatment with oral aripiprazole, the patient became more cooperative with hospital staff, took her prescribed medications, and demonstrated a reduction in paranoid behavior and delusional thinking. She was discharged on oral aripiprazole 10 mg twice daily. This case report suggests the benefit of aripiprazole for psychotic symptoms in MS. Further study of aripiprazole's efficacy is needed to confirm these findings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatric PracticeSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207