Trials and tribulations of diagnosing and managing psychosis secondary to non-convulsive epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To highlight the importance of reviewing diagnosis and management of refractory psychosis and to share that with the scientific community; and to also shed some light on the dilemma and challenges that professionals may face to diagnose and treat organic psychosis. In addition, to look at the possible similarity/dissimilarity in psychopathology between organic and primary psychosis and differences in opinions through presenting the history and course of illness of this patient. Case report We present the case of a 51-year-old female who had a 28-year history of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. She did not report or display any seizure activity, and an extensive investigation was unremarkable. The unusual nature of her psychopathology, which was predominantly visual hallucinations and somatic delusions, and the difficult to treat nature of her symptoms, prompted investigation with Electroencephalograph which demonstrated bilateral temporal lobe epileptic activity. Discussion Treatment with divalproex sodium and discontinuation of antipsychotic medication achieved an excellent response, where her visual hallucinations and somatic delusions were both remarkably ameliorated. Conclusion The differentiation between organic/secondary and functional/primary psychosis is an area of contention between psychiatrists and neurologists and also within each of these specialties. The myriad of psychopathology and associated treatment resistant psychotic symptoms that patients with non-convulsive epilepsy may experience should result in building a long desired bridge between neurology and psychiatry to collaborate in managing such cases.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".