Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catatonia is the psychiatric syndrome of disturbed motor functions amid disturbances in mood and thought first described in 1874. It was quickly found in 10% to 38% of psychiatric populations. After it was tied to schizophrenia as a type in the psychiatric classification, its recognition became increasingly limited and by the 1980s questions were asked as to where the catatonics had gone. The decline is largely owing to the change in venue for psychiatric practice from asylum to office, the rejection of physical examination, and the dependence on item rating scales for diagnosis. In the 1970s, broad surveys again showed that catatonia was as common as before among patients with mania and depression, and as a toxic response to neuroleptic drugs. The latter recognition, that the neuroleptic malignant syndrome is the same syndrome as malignant catatonia, and is effectively treated as such, sparked a renewed interest. Clinicians developed rating scales to identify the catatonia syndrome and applied the immediate relief afforded by a barbiturate or a benzodiazepine as a diagnostic test, the lorazepam test. Effective treatments were described as high doses of benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Surveys using catatonia rating scales showed catatonia to have many faces. Catatonia is presently limited to a type of schizophrenia in the psychiatric classification. Its recognition as a disorder of its own, such as delirium and dementia, should now be recognized. This experience reinforced the utility of the medical model for diagnosis. An application for melancholia is described.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".