MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137727336 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbq083

Antipsychotic Dosing: How Much but also How Often?

2010· review· en· W2137727336 on OpenAlexaff
G. Remington, Shitij Kapur

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntipsychoticDiscontinuationDosingMedicinePsychiatryIntensive care medicineAntipsychotic AgentSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable focus has been devoted to how much antipsychotic is appropriate for optimal clinical response, although how often antipsychotics need to be administered is also less than clear. Clinicians are aware of the increased risk of relapse related to antipsychotic nonadherence/discontinuation, and current practice dictates continuous antipsychotic exposure with the goal of achieving steady state-levels to maintain effectiveness and prevent relapse. Does this mean we need to (or should) administer antipsychotics at least daily? There is a body of evidence challenging this long-established clinical axiom.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207