MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084821520 · doi:10.3390/women1010001

Schizophrenia Psychosis in Women

2020· article· en· W3084821520 on OpenAlexaff
Mary V. Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychosisGuidelineMedicinePregnancySubstance abusePsychologyAntipsychoticClinical trialClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A first step towards personalized medicine is to consider whether, for some disorders, the safest and most effective treatment of women needs to differ from standard guideline recommendations developed on the basis of clinical trials conducted, for the most part, in men. A second step is to consider how women’s reproductive stages—pre-pubertal years, menstrual phases, pregnancy trimesters, lactation and postpartum periods, menopausal and postmenopausal/aging status—affect the optimal choice of treatment. This review focuses on these two steps in the treatment of psychosis, specifically schizophrenia. It discusses genetics, precursors and symptoms of schizophrenia, reproductive and associated ethical issues, antipsychotic drug response and adverse effects, substance abuse, victimization and perpetration of violence, and issues of immigration and of co-morbidity. The conclusions, while often based on clinical experience and theoretical considerations rather than strictly on the evidence of randomized controlled trials, are that clinical recommendations need to consider clinical and role differences that exist between men and women and make appropriate correction for age and reproductive status.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomenSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207