MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405661719 · doi:10.1177/070674370104600529

Suspected Neuroleptic Catatonia Induced by Clozapine

2001· letter· en· W2405661719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno Biancosino, Pierluigi Zanchi, Mascia Agostini, Luigi Grassi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatatoniaClozapineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)MedicinePsychosisNeuroleptic malignant syndromePsychiatryPsychologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The neuroleptic-induced catatonia is an unusual side effect traditionally associated with high potency neuroleptics. \nMethod: We describe the case of 36-year-old woman suffering from disorganized schizophrenia, without previous history of catatonia, who developed a catatonic reaction secondary to the use of clozapine. \nResults: After having been treated with different classes of neuroleptics (i.e. haloperidol, risperidone, clotiapine, olanzapine) with alternate clinical responses, a trial of clozapine was started. Over the next two weeks, the patient’s mental conditions gradually improved but marked catatonic symptoms emerged, in the absence of any symptoms of NMS. In the hypothesis of a NIC secondary to clozapine, all medications were discontinued and lorazepam was started. Catatonic symptoms gradually improved and five days after clozapine discontinuation all symptoms disappeared. \nConclusions: This case report supports that hypothesis that atypical neuroleptics, with weak dopamine-blocking properties, such as clozapine, could also be involved in causing NIC.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207