Seventy Years of Treating Delusional Disorder with Antipsychotics: A Historical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many decades, delusional disorder (DD) has been considered a treatment-resistant disorder, with antipsychotics acknowledged as the best, though imperfect, treatment. It is possible that the discovery of the right drug could turn treatment resistance into treatment response. The goal of this narrative review is to provide a historical perspective of the treatment of DD since the introduction of antipsychotics 70 years ago. The following search terms were used to scan the literature: antipsychotics AND "delusional disorder". Findings were that therapy for DD symptoms has changed over time. Initial reports suggested that the drug of choice was the antipsychotic pimozide, and that this drug was especially effective for the somatic subtype of DD. Subsequent studies demonstrated that other antipsychotics, for instance, risperidone and olanzapine, were also highly effective. Treatment response may vary according to the presence or absence of specific symptoms, such as cognitive defect and depression. Clozapine, partial D2 agonists, and long-acting injectable drugs may be more effective than other drugs, but the evidence is not yet in. Because of the absence of robust evidence, treatment guidelines for the optimal management of DD are not yet available.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".