Antipsychotics and hyperprolactinaemia: Clinical recommendations
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
A group of international experts in psychiatry, medicine, toxicology and pharmacy assembled to undertake a critical examination of the currently available clinical guidance on hyperprolactinaemia. This paper summarises the group's collective views and provides a summary of the recommendations agreed by the consensus group to assist clinicians in the recognition, clinical assessment, investigation and management of elevated plasma prolactin levels in patients being treated for severe mental illness. It also deals with the special problems of particular populations, gives advice about information that should be provided to patients, and suggests a strategy for routine monitoring of prolactin. The recommendations are based upon the evidence contained in the supplement 'Hyperprolactinaemia in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: Clinical Implications' (2008). The guidance contained in this article is not intended to replace national guidance (such as that of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence), however, it does provide additional detail that is unlikely to be covered in existing guidelines, and focuses on areas of uncertainty and disagreement. We hope it will add to the debate about this topic.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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