Discrepancies Between Nomenclature and Indications of Psychotropics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While the current nomenclature of psychotropic drugs is disease-based, their approved indications do not always match their classifications. METHODS: Information on approved indications of "second-generation antipsychotics" and "newer antidepressants" that are available in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), France, Germany, and Japan were extracted from their packet inserts. RESULTS: A significant proportion of "atypical antipsychotics" were approved for psychiatric conditions other than psychotic disorders (i. e., bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and autistic disorder) as follows: 76.9% in the US, 66.7% in the UK, 66.7% in France, 60.0% in Germany, and 44.4% in Japan. Likewise, more than half of "newer antidepressants" had approved indications for psychiatric conditions other than depression (e. g., panic disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, general anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder): 56.3% in the US, 69.2% in the UK, 69.2% in France, 50.0% in Germany, and 62.5% in Japan. CONCLUSIONS: Our results raise concerns regarding generic terminologies of "antipsychotics" and "antidepressants" since the conventional indication-based nomenclature does not fit well with the official indication.
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".