Workshop I: Evidence-informed approach to prescribing of atypical antipsychotics to manage behaviors in Neurocognitive disorders: Results of a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The LuBAIR™ Paradigm is a novel approach to ascribe meaning to behavioral expressions in advanced neurocognitive disorders when the reliability of a clinical assessment is limited. The meaning ascribed to each behavioral category was used to identify those who are likely to respond to the use of atypical antipsychotics in their management. De-prescribing was attempted on patients who qualified to enter this retrospective study. De-prescribing was defined as successful if individuals were completely withdrawn from AAP and remained off them for 60 days without the re-emergence of behaviors.Methods:The LuBAIR™ Inventory was filled on two occasions. The data collected on the second occasion, in the successful and failed de-prescribed groups, were compared in this retrospective study. MANOVA, Chi-Square paired t-test statistical analyses were used to detect the differences in the behavioral categories between the two cohorts. Cohen d was used to measure effect size.Results:Patients who did not have Mis-Identification and Goal-Directed Expressions were more likely to successfully de-prescribe: X2 (1, N = 40) = 29.119 p < 0.0001 and X2 (1, N = 40) = 32.374, p < 0.0001, respectively. Alternatively, the same behavioral categories were more likely to be present in patients who failed de-prescribing: MANOVA and paired t-test (p < 0.0001).Conclusion:Atypical antipsychotics, in their role as an antipsychotic and mood stabilizer, may be used to manage Mis-Identification and Goal-Directed Expressions, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".