MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2100839214 · doi:10.1177/070674370404900308

The Assessment and Management of Antipsychotic-Associated Metabolic Disturbances from a Psychiatric Perspective

2004· review· en· W2100839214 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pierre Chue

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryAntipsychoticPopulationMedicineExacerbationComorbidityReferralPerspective (graphical)Epidemiology of child psychiatric disordersSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Family medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the available data on the management of antipsychotic-associated metabolic disturbances from a psychiatric perspective. METHOD: A literature search was initially conducted using the key words followed by a search of relevant articles, including conference abstracts. RESULTS: The investigation and management of metabolic disturbances in psychiatric patients poses particular problems. Given that this population is at high risk, early identification and prevention are particularly important. CONCLUSION: Strategies for the management of metabolic disturbances in psychiatric patients are primarily based on treatments used in the general population, but their effectiveness in psychiatric populations is anecdotal. In view of the high levels of untreated medical comorbidity in psychiatric patients and the potential exacerbation through antipsychotic use in this high-risk population, specific outcome research in this population is needed. Further, referral for specialist management is recommended.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→