Coalescence of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Neuropsychology: From Theory to Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a climate of renewed interest in the synergy between neurology and psychiatry, practitioners are increasingly recognizing the importance of exchange and collaboration between these two disciplines. However, there are few working models of interdisciplinary teams that freely share expertise in real time, while providing clinical and academic training to future physicians who specialize in the central nervous system. Over the past 11 years, the McLean Hospital Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Neurology service has provided proof-of-principle for such collaboration, demonstrating that a team comprising psychiatrists, neurologists, and neuropsychologists can function effectively as a unit while maintaining the autonomy of these three disciplines and also synthesizing their combined knowledge. In addition to delivering enhanced patient care and promoting medical research, this clinical service has provided enriched cross-specialty training for fellows, residents, and medical students. The practical functioning of the team is described, and case vignettes are presented to illustrate the team's collaborative synergism in practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".