MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061091668 · doi:10.1055/s-2004-827176

Usefulness of Bromocriptine in the Treatment of Amisulpride-induced Hyperprolactinemia

2004· letter· en· W2061091668 on OpenAlexfundno aff
N. Bliesener, H. Yokusoglu, Boris B. Quednow, Dietrich Klingmüller, K.‐U. Kühn

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacopsychiatry · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsChinese University of Hong KongUniversity of Hong KongSanofi
KeywordsBromocriptineGalactorrheaAmisulprideMedicineAmenorrheaProlactinSulpirideDiscontinuationInternal medicineEndocrinologyAntipsychoticPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PregnancyDopamineDopaminergicHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the effect of bromocriptine on amisulpride-induced endocrinological disturbances (galactorrhea/amenorrhea) and on psychotic symptoms in an open-labeled study. Five women suffering from chronic psychosis and amisulpride-induced hyperprolactinemia (AIH) with amenorrhea and/or galactorrhea received bromocriptine at a dose of 10-40 mg/day. In none of these patients could prolactin levels be reduced to the normal range. They were markedly reduced in three of five patients. Menses recurred in one of four patients with amenorrhea. Lactation decreased in one of three patients with galactorrhea. In two patients with reduced prolactin levels, psychotic symptoms exacerbated but fully remitted after discontinuation of bromocriptine therapy. Thus, bromocriptine seems to annihilate the central effect of amisulpride at a dose that reduces AIH. Therefore, bromocriptine appears not to be suited for the treatment of AIH.

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)0.002
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacopsychiatrySame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207