Increased Antipsychotic Sensitivity in Elderly Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this article is to review the literature regarding clinical effects, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of antipsychotics in older people and to examine potential mechanisms underlying the age-related antipsychotic sensitivity. DATA SOURCES: Data for this review were identified by searches of PubMed (1950-2007) and references from relevant articles and books. Search terms included antipsychotic, neuroleptic, elderly, aging, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and dopamine, and only articles written in English or Japanese were consulted. DATA SELECTION: Studies, reviews, and books pertaining to the clinical effects, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics with regard to the use of antipsychotics in older patients were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: The prevailing practices and clinical guidelines suggest that elderly patients can obtain therapeutic benefits at a lower dose and experience adverse effects from antipsychotics more often than younger patients, although there are still few trials that have directly compared elderly patients with the young. The literature suggests an age-related increase in brain access of drugs and demonstrates a decrease with age in the principal components in the dopaminergic system, including endogenous dopamine level and dopamine receptor density. CONCLUSIONS: While clinicians conclusively hold that patients become more sensitive to antipsychotics as they become older, this proposition has only modest empirical support and warrants further investigation. Age-related functional decline in the dopaminergic system predicts lower antipsychotic doses for older patients. We propose a hierarchical series of testable hypotheses to address the relative contribution of age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes to antipsychotic drug sensitivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".