Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reports of psychotic episodes characterized by irrational, unintelligible behaviours and hallucinations are frequent throughout historical narratives. Appropriately contextualized, some of these descriptions appear to resemble the paranoid, and catatonic characteristics of schizophrenia, respectively, yet holistic accounts of schizophrenia-like syndromes rarely exist prior to the 19th century.1 Despite evolving diagnostic criteria and treatment approaches, and more than 100 years since the demarcation of schizophrenia by Eugen Bleuler in 1908, the etiology, neuropathology and pathophysiology of schizophrenia remain elusive.2-4 No biological markers possess the sensitivity and specificity expected of a diagnostic test, and schizophrenia persists conceptually as a broad clinical syndrome characterized by a range of subjective symptoms with varying patterns of course.5-8 This heterogeneity coupled with a lack of coherence between clinical and preclinical evidence have fueled speculation about the validity of current conceptualizations of the illness.9-12 Nevertheless, patients exhibit typical symptom progression over time, appear to respond favourably to particular treatment approaches, and despite inconsistencies in diagnostic classification, alternative proposals do not offer improvements in any of these categories.13,14 Undoubtedly, further parsing of schizophrenia and related disorders will be necessary to advance future treatment and diagnostic approaches. In this review, we briefly outline the origins of schizophrenia as it is conceptualized contemporarily by linking ancient medical descriptions with modern clinical perspectives, and discuss why historical accounts of schizophrenia may not accurately reflect its prevalence in the past.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".