MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784962315 · doi:10.1177/0004867417748750

A systematic review of risk factors for methamphetamine-associated psychosis

2018· review· en· W2784962315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shalini Arunogiri, James Foulds, Rebecca McKetin, Dan I. Lubman

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsMethamphetaminePsychosisMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Chronic methamphetamine use is commonly associated with the development of psychotic symptoms. The predictors and correlates of methamphetamine-associated psychosis are poorly understood. We sought to systematically review factors associated with psychotic symptoms in adults using illicit amphetamine or methamphetamine. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE (OVID), PsycINFO and EMBASE databases from inception to 8 December 2016. The search strategy combined three concept areas: methamphetamine or amphetamine, psychosis and risk factors. Included studies needed to compare adults using illicit methamphetamine or amphetamine, using a validated measure of psychosis, on a range of risk factors. Of 402 identified articles, we removed 45 duplicates, 320 articles based on abstract/title and 17 ineligible full-text articles, leaving 20 included studies that were conducted in 13 populations. Two co-authors independently extracted the following data from each study: country, setting and design; participant demographic and clinical details; sample size; measure/s used and measures of association between psychosis outcomes and risk factors. Individual study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and strength of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Frequency of methamphetamine use and severity of methamphetamine dependence were consistently found to be associated with psychosis, and sociodemographic factors were not. There was inconsistent evidence available for all other risk factors. Individual study quality was low-moderate for the majority of studies. Heterogeneity in study outcomes precluded quantitative synthesis of outcomes across studies. CONCLUSION: The most consistent correlates of psychotic symptoms were increased frequency of methamphetamine use and dependence on methamphetamine. The findings of this review highlight the need for targeted assessment and treatment of methamphetamine use in individuals presenting with psychosis.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations116
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207