Quetiapine for Psychosis in Parkinson Disease and Neurodegenerative Parkinsonian Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to assess the high-level evidence regarding the role of quetiapine in the treatment of psychosis in patients with neurodegenerative parkinsonian disorders. Studies were included in the qualitative review if they (1) enrolled participants with diagnosis of Parkinson disease, Lewy body dementia, or any other neurodegenerative parkinsonian disorders; (2) assessed the efficacy of quetiapine; and (3) evaluated psychotic and motor outcomes using validated tools. Of the 341 manuscripts identified, 7 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The studies' risk of bias was considered low. A total of 241 participants enrolled in these trials. Heterogeneity was high due to inclusion criteria, user definitions, assessment tools, and study design. Although not causing any motor deterioration, quetiapine failed to significantly reduce psychotic symptoms compared to placebo when objectively assessed on the Brief Psychotic Rating Scale, the most frequently reported scale in these studies. High loss to follow-up and dropout rates as well as significant improvement in psychotic symptoms in the placebo groups may have affected measurements of possible positive medication effects.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".