CNS volume 13 supplement 9 Cover and Front matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atypical antipsychotic treatment strategies have tended to change significantly from the time new drugs are introduced to the market. Because these drugs are associated with so many side effects, dosing strategies are largely based on the avoidance of adverse effects. A great number of issues complicate the task of effectively dosing atypical antipsychotics, including great variability and unpredictability in individual response. This often leads to extensive periods of trial and error as well as patient suffering, while physicians search for an optimum treatment. The mechanisms of action of these drugs are not entirely understood; they can be effective for both psychosis and mood disorders, possibly via actions on different systems or circuits. Furthermore, a resolution to the dilemma of dosing once or twice daily depends on issues of patient compliance and drug efficacy. This supplement puts these issues into perspective by illustrating historical discrepancies in antipsychotic use between clinical trials and practice, discussing individual response variability to antipsychotic treatment, describing current theories of antipsychotic mechanisms of action, and speculating as to the future of antipsychotic treatment strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 0.171 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".