MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165387222 · doi:10.1176/jnp.17.1.7

Apathy: Why Care?

2005· review· en· W2165387222 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropsychiatry · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApathySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryDistressPsychosisPsychologyDementiaDiseaseDopaminergicCaregiver burdenMedicineClinical psychologyNeuroscienceDopamineInternal medicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review presents data showing that apathy is common across a number of disorders. Apathy is not only common, but is also associated with significant problems: reduced functional level, decreased response to treatment, poor illness outcome, caregiver distress, and chronicity. Preliminary evidence of treatment efficacy exists for dopaminergic drugs and for amphetamines. Strong evidence of efficacy exists for acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer's disease, and for atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Frontal-subcortical system(s) dysfunction is implicated in the causation of apathy; apathy subtypes based on the various frontal-subcortical loops may thus exist. Further research involving diagnosis, pathophysiology, and treatment is suggested.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.332 · 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