MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366602229 · doi:10.1002/mds.29392

Scales for Antipsychotic‐Associated Movement Disorders: Systematic Review, Critique, and Recommendations

2023· review· en· W4366602229 on OpenAlexaff
Davide Martino, Vikram Karnik, Roongroj Bhidayasiri, Robert A. Hauser, Antonella Macerollo, Tamara Pringsheim, Daniel Truong, Stewart A. Factor, Matěj Škorvánek, Anette Schrag

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAkathisiaMovement disordersRating scaleAntipsychoticPsychiatryPsychologyScale (ratio)MedicineClinical psychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Developmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic-associated movement disorders remain common and disabling. Their screening and assessment are challenging due to clinical heterogeneity and different use of nomenclature between psychiatrists and neurologists. OBJECTIVE: An International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society subcommittee aimed to rate psychometric quality of severity and screening instruments for antipsychotic-associated movement disorders. METHODS: Following the methodology adopted by previous International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society subcommittee papers, instruments for antipsychotic-associated movement disorders were reviewed, applying a classification as "recommended," "recommended with caveats," "suggested," or "listed." RESULTS: Our review identified 23 instruments. The highest grade of recommendation reached is "recommended with caveats," assigned to seven severity rating instruments (Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movements Scale, Drug-Induced Extra-Pyramidal Symptoms Scale, Maryland Psychiatric Research Centre involuntary movements scale, Simpson Angus Scale, and Matson Evaluation of Drug Side effects). Only three of these seven (Drug-Induced Extra-Pyramidal Symptoms Scale, Maryland Psychiatric Research Centre, Matson Evaluation of Drug Side effects) were also screening instruments. Their main caveats are insufficient demonstration of psychometric properties (internal consistency, skewing, responsiveness to change) and long duration of administration. Eight "suggested" instruments did not meet requirements for the "recommended" grade also because of insufficient psychometric validation. Other limitations shared by several instruments are lack of comprehensiveness in assessing the spectrum of antipsychotic-associated movement disorders and ambiguous nomenclature. CONCLUSIONS: The high number of instruments "recommended with caveats" does not support the need for developing new instruments for antipsychotic-associated movement disorders. However, addressing the caveats with new psychometric studies and revising existing instruments to improve the clarity of their nomenclature are recommended next steps. © 2023 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.246
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.246
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.364 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207