Metabolic Monitoring for Patients Treated with Antipsychotic Medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic treatment include weight gain, dyslipidemia and increased susceptibility to diabetes. Patients with schizophrenia have increased coronary heart disease mortality and reduced life expectancy. There is an urgent clinical need to monitor antipsychotic-treated patients for metabolic disturbance. Our objectives were to review published international monitoring guidelines, establish goals for metabolic monitoring, and make recommendations for practice. METHOD: We reviewed the major published consensus guidelines for metabolic monitoring of patients treated with antipsychotic medications and selectively reviewed practice guidelines for the management of diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. RESULTS: Patients with serious mental illness have markedly elevated rates of metabolic disturbance and limited access to general medical care. Monitoring, but not necessarily medical treatment of metabolic disorder, falls within the scope of psychiatric practice and should include screening for metabolic disturbance as well as tracking the effects of antipsychotic treatment. In addition, psychiatrists and psychiatric services should work toward facilitating patients' access to medical care. There is considerable consensus in the published guidelines. Areas of dissent include which patients to monitor, the utility of glucose tolerance testing, and the point at which to consider switching antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: We encourage clinicians to adopt a structured system for conducting and recording metabolic monitoring and to develop collaborations with family physicians, diabetes specialists, dieticians, and recreation therapists to facilitate appropriate medical care for antipsychotic-treated patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".