MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: Treatment Response and Resistance in Psychosis (TRRIP) Working Group Consensus Guidelines on Diagnosis and Terminology

2016· review· en· W2560754155 on OpenAlexafffund
Oliver Howes, Robert A. McCutcheon, Ofer Agid, Andrea de Bartolomeis, Nico J.M. van Beveren, Michael L. Birnbaum, Michael Bloomfield, Rodrigo A. Bressan, Robert W. Buchanan, William T. Carpenter, David Castle, Leslie Citrome, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Michael Davidson, Richard Drake, Serdar Dursun, Bjørn H. Ebdrup, Hélio Elkis, Peter Falkai, W. Wolfgang Fleischacker, Ary Gadelha, Fiona Gaughran, Birte Glenthøj, Ariel Graff‐Guerrero, Jorge Hallak, William G. Honer, James L. Kennedy, Bruce J. Kinon, Stephen M. Lawrie, Jimmy Lee, F. Markus Leweke, James H. MacCabe, Carolyn McNabb, Herbert Y. Meltzer, Hans‐Jürgen Möller, Shinchiro Nakajima, Christos Pantelis, Tiago Reis Marques, Gary Remington, Susan L. Rossell, Cynthia Siu, Takefumi Suzuki, Iris E. Sommer, David Taylor, Neil Thomas, Alp Üçok, Daniel Umbricht, James Walters, John M. Kane, Christoph U. Correll

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentMedical Research CouncilDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of British ColumbiaDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoFeinberg School of MedicineH. Lundbeck A/SUniversidade de São PauloTel Aviv UniversityCardiff UniversityLundbeckfondenErasmus Medisch CentrumUniversity of MelbourneSwinburne University of TechnologyMenzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of LondonUniversity of TorontoWellcome TrustUniversity College LondonKing's College LondonKeio UniversityImperial College LondonNorthwell HealthUniversity of AlbertaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer ResearchMaudsley CharityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of OtagoNorthwestern UniversityBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsTerminologyPsychosisSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryPsychologyResistance (ecology)PsychotherapistMedicineClinical psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Research and clinical translation in schizophrenia is limited by inconsistent definitions of treatment resistance and response. To address this issue, the authors evaluated current approaches and then developed consensus criteria and guidelines. METHOD: A systematic review of randomized antipsychotic clinical trials in treatment-resistant schizophrenia was performed, and definitions of treatment resistance were extracted. Subsequently, consensus operationalized criteria were developed through 1) a multiphase, mixed methods approach, 2) identification of key criteria via an online survey, and 3) meetings to achieve consensus. RESULTS: Of 2,808 studies identified, 42 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 studies (50%) did not provide operationalized criteria. In the remaining studies, criteria varied considerably, particularly regarding symptom severity, prior treatment duration, and antipsychotic dosage thresholds; only two studies (5%) utilized the same criteria. The consensus group identified minimum and optimal criteria, employing the following principles: 1) current symptoms of a minimum duration and severity determined by a standardized rating scale; 2) moderate or worse functional impairment; 3) prior treatment consisting of at least two different antipsychotic trials, each for a minimum duration and dosage; 4) systematic monitoring of adherence and meeting of minimum adherence criteria; 5) ideally at least one prospective treatment trial; and 6) criteria that clearly separate responsive from treatment-resistant patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in current approaches to defining treatment resistance in schizophrenia. The authors present consensus guidelines that operationalize criteria for determining and reporting treatment resistance, adequate treatment, and treatment response, providing a benchmark for research and clinical translation.

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)0.244
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.284
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2440.284
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.016
Bibliometrics0.0220.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0170.013
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.320 · 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.

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

Citations1,106
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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