Neuroleptic dysphoria: revisiting the concept 50 years later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the concept of neuroleptic dysphoria, its historical development and the current state of the art. METHOD: This paper is based on extensive but selective literature review and also draws on our extensive clinical and research experiences. RESULTS: Although the construct of neuroleptic dysphoria was recognized shortly following the introduction of the first antipsychotic, chlorpromazine, it took several years for the concept to receive adequate research and clinical attention. Without having direct evidence to link neuroleptic dysphoria to dopamine, it was generally understood that dopamine played a significant role in its genesis. In recent neuroimaging studies and dopamine depletion strategies, the role of dopamine in the genesis of neuroleptic dysphoria has been directly confirmed. CONCLUSION: Neuroleptic dysphoria is a valid construct, which has significant implications for treatment and outcome. It is now clear that it relates to dopamine activities in the nigrostriatal complex. Recent research has also raised the issue of whether neuroleptic dysphoria is a variant of extrapyramidal symptoms. Meanwhile, the role of dopamine in both the genesis of neuroleptic dysphoria and addictive behaviour has raised the issue of both conditions being different facets of the schizophrenic disease process. The recent interface of addiction and psychiatry research may have opened a new science: the science of subjective tolerability disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".