MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753741740 · doi:10.1111/acps.12796

Does persisting fear sustain catatonia?

2017· review· en· W2753741740 on OpenAlexaff
Max Fink, Edward Shorter

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatatoniaStuporPsychologySedationPsychiatryNeural substratePsychosisSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychotherapistMedicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychological substrate of catatonia. METHOD: Reviewing the historical descriptions and explanations of catatonic behaviours by clinicians from its delineation in the 19th century to the present. RESULTS: Patients with catatonia are often haunted by fears and terrors; this has not been widely appreciated, and certainly was lost from view in the days when catatonia was considered a subtype of schizophrenia. The report contributes to resolving a major question in catatonia: is the mind in stupor inactive, as the blank state that we picture in anesthetized patients, or is the mind active, so preoccupied as to exclude all other influences. THE MAIN FINDING: Persistent fear occupies the mind of catatonic patients. CONCLUSION: The signs of catatonia are adaptations to persistent fear, akin to tonic immobilization. The relief afforded by sedation supports this interpretation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaSame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207