Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review focuses on atypical antipsychotics and tardive dyskinesia. RECENT FINDINGS: We have known for many years that clozapine has a diminished risk of tardive dyskinesia compared with typical antipsychotics. The last decade has seen the introduction of a number of other atypical antipsychotics, allowing us to begin evaluating whether they too share this attribute. In addition, the opportunity to use these drugs as first-line treatment permits a more precise means of establishing risk. While longer-term data are required, the limited evidence available clearly indicates that the atypical antipsychotics have a decreased liability of tardive dyskinesia, approximately 1% compared with 5% for typical agents annually. Like clozapine, the other atypical antipsychotics also demonstrate antidyskinetic properties in individuals with preexisting tardive dyskinesia. The underlying mechanisms remain unclear, and without such information it is not possible to say what clinical conditions, if any, might diminish or even eliminate these advantages. SUMMARY: An update is provided regarding the atypical antipsychotics and tardive dyskinesia. This information is critical in our decision-making regarding choice of antipsychotic and optimal use in the clinical setting.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".