MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033823891 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n6p295

Acute Dystonia due to Citalopram Treatment: A Case Series

2014· article· en· W2033823891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Mohammad Moosavi, Mahshid Ahmadi, Mani B. Monajemi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitalopramDystoniaSeries (stratigraphy)MedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Abnormal movements such as acute dystonia, dyskinesia, parkinsonism, exacerbation of Parkinson disease, akathisia and possibly neuroleptic malignant syndrome may be associated with the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) rarely. Citalopram, a typical SSRI, used in serotonergic dysfunction related disorders, potentially can cause extrapyramidal symptoms such as acute dystonia. METHODS: In a retrospective survey on patients referred to psychiatric clinic between February 2010 and February 2011 who were prescribed citalopram by the psychiatrist. The data about Demographic, history of drug and alcohol abuse or dependence, diagnosis and citalopram consumption length collected. The daily dose of citalopram was also recorded. Acute dystonia was identified by a validated chart review and precise neurological examination. RESULTS: Nine patients were included. Citalopram was initiated at a 20 mg and titrated to a mean dose of 27 mg. The median length of acute dystonia after citalopram therapy was nine days. Other common adverse events included somnolence, gastric upset and nightmare in the cases. CONCLUSIONS: This case series was an effort to show the citalopram potential to trigger acute dystonia. Clinician needs to be aware of possible dystonia, as early recognition is necessary to prevent major adverse outcomes.

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)0.001
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207