Polydipsia, Psychosis, and Familial Psychopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the demographic and clinical factors and familial psychopathology of chronic psychiatric inpatients with, and without, polydipsia. METHOD: We undertook a case-control study of chronic psychiatric inpatients both with, and without, polydipsia. Clinical and demographic data were gathered using a predesigned questionnaire, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), the Mini-Mental State Examination Scale (MMSE), and the Family History-Research Diagnostic Criteria (FH-RDC). RESULTS: The prevalence rate of polydipsia was 20.2%. The group with polydipsia was significantly younger, both at the time of their first-ever psychiatric and current psychiatric admissions, compared with the group without polydipsia. The 2 groups were similar in terms of their illness characteristics and psychiatric diagnoses. In the group with polydipsia, alcohol abuse predated the psychotic illness by a mean of 10.5 (SD 4.4) years, compared with 4.8 (SD 1.6) years for the same period in the unaffected group. The 2 groups did not differ significantly regarding the antipsychotic medication dosage, the proportion on concomitant anticholinergic medication, the documented previous response to antipsychotic medication, or past treatment with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). First-degree relatives of patients with polydipsia were found to have significantly higher rates of alcohol dependence. CONCLUSION: This study provides further evidence for the higher rate of polydipsia among chronic psychiatric patient populations and for high rates of alcohol-related problems among their first-degree relatives.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".