Prevalence of hyperprolactinaemia in a naturalistic cohort of schizophrenia and bipolar outpatients during treatment with typical and atypical antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperprolactinaemia is a common finding in patients treated with antipsychotics. A complete cohort of 194 schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients receiving antipsychotics in a single community mental health trust in Halifax UK underwent routine prolactin screening in the absence of any reLevant symptomatoLogy. Values above the upper limit of normal were measured in 38% of the cohort and were more common in females (52%) than males (26%). Significantly elevated levels (>1000 mIU/l) were measured in 21% of the cohort. Risperidone monotherapy treatment was associated with hyperprolactinaemia in 69% of patients ( n = 35) and in 100% of female patients (n = 16) and amisulpride monotherapy in 100% (n = 7). Prolactin screening is not currently undertaken routinely in the UK. These data give some indication of prevalence of varying degrees of hyperproLactinaemia that might be found when screening an asymptomatic cohort of schizophrenia and bipolar outpatients. Clinicians may be helped by the reporting of such categorical data from clinical trials in addition to mean cohort values of prolactin. Long-term hyperprolactinaemia may be associated with clinical sequeLae in some 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".