MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166765859 · doi:10.1177/070674370505000907

Tardive Dyskinesia in the Era of Typical and Atypical Antipsychotics. Part 1: Pathophysiology and Mechanisms of Induction

2005· review· en· W2166765859 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Howard C. Margolese, Guy Chouinard, Theodore Kolivakis, Linda Beauclair, Robert J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTardive dyskinesiaNeuroscienceAntipsychoticPathophysiologyDyskinesiaMedicinePsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)DiseasePsychiatryInternal medicineParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is the principal adverse effect of long-term treatment with conventional antipsychotic agents. Several mechanisms may exist for this phenomenon. Mechanisms for the lower incidence of TD with atypical antipsychotics also remain to be fully understood. We undertook to explore and better understand these mechanisms. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of TD pathophysiology literature from January 1, 1965, to January 31, 2004, using the terms tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptics, antipsychotics, pathophysiology, and mechanisms. Additional articles were obtained by searching the bibliographies of relevant references. Articles were considered if they contributed to the current understanding of the pathophysiology of TD. RESULTS: Current TD vulnerability models include genetic vulnerability, disease-related vulnerability, and decreased functional reserve. Mechanisms of TD induction include prolonged blockade of postsynaptic dopamine receptors, postsynaptic dopamine hypersensitivity, damage to striatal GABA interneurons, and damage of striatal cholinergic interneurons. Atypical antipsychotics may cause less TD because they have less impact on the basal ganglia and are less likely to cause postsynaptic dopamine hypersensitivity. CONCLUSION: Although the ultimate model for TD is not yet understood, it is plausible that several of these vulnerabilities and mechanisms act together to produce TD. The lower incidence of TD with atypical antipsychotics has helped to elucidate the,mechanisms of TD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.284 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations140
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207