MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916944740 · doi:10.1136/gpsych-2018-100026

Study on risk factors of extrapyramidal symptoms induced by antipsychotics and its correlation with symptoms of schizophrenia

2019· article· en· W2916944740 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiajun Weng, Yan Zhang, Huafang Li, Yifeng Shen, Wenjuan Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeneral Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Extrapyramidal symptomsScale for the Assessment of Negative SymptomsPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleAkathisiaRating scalePsychiatryMoodPsychologyInternal medicineBrief Psychiatric Rating ScaleClinical psychologyMedicineAntipsychoticPsychosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) are one of the most common and neglected side effects during the treatment of schizophrenia. The risk factors of EPS in Chinese patients with schizophrenia and its relationship with psychiatric symptoms and mood symptoms of schizophrenia remain unknown. AIMS: The main objective of this study is to explore the risk factors of EPS caused by antipsychotics and the relationship between EPS and psychotic symptoms and mood symptoms of schizophrenia. METHOD: This study included 679 patients with schizophrenia who have met the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition. Patients were divided into the EPS group and the non-EPS group according to the scale rating criteria and whether the anticholinergics have been used. The differences between demographic data and characters of drug intake were compared between the two groups, and the risk factors of EPS were selected between those factors. Correlation analysis was performed on the severity of schizophrenia (Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) score) and EPS scale (Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) score) in 679 patients. The differences between the PANSS subscale score and the CDSS score between the EPS group and the non-EPS group were compared. RESULT: Compared with the non-EPS group, the EPS group patients are older, and they have a longer duration since first prescribed antipsychotics. The EPS group patients have higher frequency of atypical antipsychotics polytherapy and typical and atypical antipsychotics polytherapy or combined treatments with mood stabilisers. Logistic regression analysis shows that antipsychotics with high D2 receptor antagonistic effect and illness duration are the risk factors of EPS. The SAS score was significantly correlated with PANSS negative score, PANSS general psychopathological score and PANSS total score. The BARS scale score was significantly correlated with PANSS positive score, PANSS general psychopathological score, PANSS total score and CDSS total score. The AIMS scale score was significantly correlated with PANSS negative score. Compared with the non-EPS group, the EPS group patients have significantly higher PANSS negative score, PANSS general psychopathological score, PANSS total score and CDSS total score. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotic drugs with high D2 receptor antagonism and disease duration are risk factors of EPS in Chinese patients with schizophrenia. The severity of various types of EPS is significantly correlated with the psychiatric and mood symptoms of schizophrenia, and psychiatric symptoms and mood symptoms were significantly more severe in the EPS group. The occurrence of EPS is associated with poor treatment outcome of schizophrenia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneral PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207