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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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