Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The association between MS and psychosis has until recently been considered uncommon, which helps to explain the paucity of research devoted to the topic. Nevertheless, the relationship is of interest for a number of reasons. These include the possibility that both demyelination and psychosis have a shared, viral pathogenesis, the role of coarse cerebral pathology in the etiology of psychosis, and problems posed by the treatment of psychosis in the neurologically compromised patient. The DSM-IV diagnosis for psychosis in the context of multiple sclerosis is “psychosis due to a general medical condition” (PDGMC [American Psychiatric Association 1994]; see Table 6.1 for the criteria). The equivalent International Classification of Disease (10th edition; ICD-10; World Health Organization [WHO], 1992) category is one of either “organic hallucinosis,” “organic catatonic disorder,” or “organic delusional (schizophrenia-like) disorder.” This difference in terminology reflects a philosophical divide that separates the taxonomies. Inherent in the DSM approach is the belief that all mental disorders (not just psychotic ones) are “organic” and that the functional–organic dichotomy is needlessly divisive. The ICD-10, mindful of serving a different constituency (i.e. first and third world countries) has retained the word “organic.” Irrespective of which classification is subscribed to, references on both sides of the Atlantic abound in descriptive terms such as “schizophrenia-like,” “secondary psychosis” and “organic psychosis.” The plethora of terminology also confronts the clinician–researcher with another important dilemma, one that is common to both systems. Is the psychosis caused by the MS or is it a chance occurrence?
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".