MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224979485 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1745741

The Neuropsychiatric Approach to the Assessment of Patients in Neurology

2022· article· en· W4224979485 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas T. Trapp, Michael R. Martyna, Shan Siddiqi, Sepideh N. Bajestan

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsNeuropsychiatryBehavioral neurologyNeurologyMedicineSpecialtyPsychiatryPerspective (graphical)DementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuropsychiatry is a clinical neuroscience specialty focused on the evaluation and treatment of patients who present with symptoms at the intersection of neurology and psychiatry. Neuropsychiatrists assess and manage the cognitive, affective, behavioral, and perceptual manifestations of disorders of the central nervous system. Although fellowship training in behavioral neurology-neuropsychiatry exists in the United States and several other countries internationally, the need for neuropsychiatric expertise greatly outweighs the number of specialists in practice or training. This article serves as a primer for both neurologists and psychiatrists seeking to improve or refresh their knowledge of the neuropsychiatric assessment, including detailing aspects of the history-taking, physical exam, psychometric testing, and associated diagnostic work-up. In doing so, we urge the next generation of neurologists and psychiatrists to take on both the opportunity and challenge to work at the intersection of both clinical neuroscience specialties using an integrated neuropsychiatric perspective.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in NeurologySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207