Functional foods: How functional are they? A case report of supplement-induced psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is rising evidence of patients' use of alternative and complementary medicine. The percentage of the U.S. population who used at least one dietary supplement increased from 42% in 1988-1994 to 53% in 2003-2006. We present a case of an Asian female in her 40s, with no previous psychiatric illness, who presented to the emergency room following a brief psychotic episode, during which she self-amputated the tips of her fingers, after using multivitamins and herbal supplements including ginseng, gui yuan rou (Chinese herb), astaxanthin, goji (Chinese fruit), selenium, saw palmetto, grape seed extract, citrus bioflavanoid, lutein (zeaxantin), resvexatrol, sun chlorella, spirulina powder, phytoceramides, phytoestrogen, glucosatrin, bromelain plus, and American bee pollen. Comprehensive laboratory workup, drug screening, and diagnostic imaging were negative. Vital signs were stable. Other than the amputated finger tips, the remainder of her physical examination was unremarkable. Her mental status improved significantly after treatment with risperidone 1 mg twice daily, during a five-day psychiatric hospitalization. This case draws attention to the fact that supplements have the potential of producing frank psychosis and require close monitoring and study by physicians.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".