MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neuroleptic dysphoria: revisiting the concept 50 years later

2005· article· en· W2090361153 on OpenAlexaff
A. George Awad, Lakshmi N.P. Voruganti

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHumber River Regional HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysphoriaPsychologyPsychiatryDopamineClinical psychologyNeuroscienceAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207