T196. THERAPEUTIC MANAGEMENT IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND SCHIZOPHRENIA SPECTRUM DISORDERS DUAL DIAGNOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Multiple sclerosis has been suggested as a potential vulnerability factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and there is a hypothesis about a common etiology in a subgroup of schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis [1]. Immune-related single-nucleotide polymorphisms have been associated with schizophrenia and genetic pleiotropy between schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis has been reported, but not between bipolar disorder and multiple sclerosis (at the level of major histocompatibility complex) [2]. As new data about the involvement of genetically-determined immune factors in the susceptibility to schizophrenia appear (e.g., variants of complement factor 4 possibly linked to synaptic pruning during brain development) [3] the interest for finding therapeutic targets within the immune system for psychotic disorders is also increasing. Methods Three patients diagnosed with both schizophrenia spectrum disorders (schizophrenia n=2, or schizoaffective disorder, depressive type n=1), female, mean age 43.7, with a history of psychotic disorder for at least one year, were monitored during 6 months using Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Clinical Global Impressions – Severity (CGI-S), Columbia-Suicide Scale for Schizophrenia (CSSRS), Calgary Depression Scale (CDS), Multiple Sclerosis Severity Scale (MSSS), and the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). None of these patients presented other organic or psychiatric co-morbidity, and they were on active treatment for their multiple sclerosis throughout the 6-month duration of psychiatric evaluation. All patients were initiated on a new antipsychotic, because of the lack of efficacy of the previous agents, or due to their lack of therapeutic adherence. A patient was initiated on olanzapine 15 mg/day, while the other two received risperidone 4 mg/day. The antipsychotic doses were flexible during the 6 months of the treatment, with olanzapine between 10 and 20 mg daily, and risperidone between 3–6 mg daily. The initial PANSS mean score was 92.2, with a GAF of 35.3 and a CGI-S of 5.1. Results All patients reached the week 24 visit of their evaluation, and the overall tolerablity of the antipsychotic treatment was good. All patients had lower PANSS scores at week 24 (the mean decrease was -25.6 points compared to baseline), higher GAF scores (+27.7 points), and lower CGI-S (-2.5 points). CSSRS did not change significantly during the 6 months, the score remained at minimum value, and the CDS scores also remained constantly under 3. ESRS recorded transient increments, but at week 12 they were not significantly increased reported at the baseline values, and no corrective medication was recommended throughout the 6 months for extrapyramidal symptoms. MSSS mean score did not change significantly at week 12 compared to its baseline values. Discussion Atypical antipsychotics are efficient and well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis dual diagnosis. The positive effects of atypical antipsychotics maintained during the 6 months of monitoring and they had no significant impact over the multiple sclerosis symptoms. References
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 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".