MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099788487 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbp059

Catatonia Is not Schizophrenia: Kraepelin's Error and the Need to Recognize Catatonia as an Independent Syndrome in Medical Nomenclature

2009· review· en· W2099788487 on OpenAlexafffund
Max Fink, Edward Shorter, Michael Alan Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNew York Academy of MedicineAmerican Psychological Association
KeywordsCatatoniaLorazepamSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryDementia praecoxPsychologyElectroconvulsive therapyManiaMedicineBipolar disorderCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catatonia is a motor dysregulation syndrome described by Karl Kahlbaum in 1874. He understood catatonia as a disease of its own. Others quickly recognized it among diverse disorders, but Emil Kraepelin made it a linchpin of his concept of dementia praecox. Eugen Bleuler endorsed this singular association. During the 20th century, catatonia has been considered a type of schizophrenia. In the 1970s, American authors identified catatonia in patients with mania and depression, as a toxic response, and in general medical and neurologic illnesses. It was only occasionally found in patients with schizophrenia. When looked for, catatonia is found in 10% or more of acute psychiatric admissions. It is readily diagnosable, verifiable by a lorazepam challenge test, and rapidly treatable. Even in its most lethal forms, it responds to high doses of lorazepam or to electroconvulsive therapy. These treatments are not accepted for patients with schizophrenia. Prompt recognition and treatment saves lives. It is time to place catatonia into its own home in the psychiatric classification.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations221
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207