Spontaneous Parkinsonism in Antipsychotic-Naive Patients with First-Episode Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish rates of spontaneous parkinsonism (SP) among the different types of psychosis. We hypothesized that the rate would be higher among persons with affective symptoms. METHODS: We included in the study consecutive patients admitted to a first-episode psychosis intervention program. We recorded sociodemographic data from interviews with patients and caregivers and from medical records. We used the Simpson-Angus Rating Scale at baseline to assess parkinsonism and a diagnosis of SP was established if the Simpson-Angus score was > or = 0.3. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were examined; of these, only 4 (2.3%; 2 Chinese women, 1 Chinese man, and 1 Malay man) had SP. There was a significant difference in the rates of SP in patients with affective psychosis and schizoaffective disorder, compared with those with nonaffective psychoses (15.4% vs 1.2%; chi2 = 10.7, P = 0.001). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in age, duration of untreated psychosis, or sex distribution. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of SP in Asian patients with first-episode psychosis was low, and it was significantly higher in those with affective symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".