A systematic review of antipsychotic agents for primary delusional infestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delusional infestation (DI) is a rare delusional disorder in which individuals have a false belief that they are infested with bugs, parasites, or insects, despite the lack of medical evidence that such an infestation exists. Data on the effectiveness of antipsychotics for DI are limited. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception of the databases up until July 20, 2018. Studies examining typical or atypical antipsychotics for primary DI were included. RESULTS: A total of 51 relevant articles were identified, primarily case reports/series. Overall response was favorable for both typical and atypical antipsychotics, but there was no strong evidence to suggest that any one antipsychotic agent was preferable to other agents. Pimozide (1-16 mg/day) and risperidone (0.5-8 mg/day) were the most commonly studied typical and atypical antipsychotics, respectively. Inconsistent reporting of treatment outcomes and variability in study designs limited the overall evaluation of the data. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a lack of sound data supporting the effectiveness of antipsychotic treatment for primary DI. Further research is required to establish more definitive conclusions about the relative clinical utility of antipsychotic agents for DI.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".