Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 22q11.2 deletion syndrome confers significant risk for the development of schizophrenia. While current recommendations regarding the management of psychotic symptoms in affected individuals are generally in keeping with treatment guidelines for general schizophrenia populations, evidence for the use of clozapine has come from case reports and retrospective observational data. As no reviews on the topic currently exist, a systematic review of clozapine use in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome was completed. METHODS: In November 2023, a literature search was completed using both PubMed and Scopus to identify English-language articles that reported the use of clozapine in humans with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles describing 57 individuals were deemed eligible for inclusion. Most individuals had a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Where reported, the mean or median dose of clozapine was relatively low, and the majority of individuals exhibited a good response (approximately 65.5% across individual case reports/series). While seizures were unsurprisingly the most commonly reported serious adverse effect, the majority of individuals were able to remain on (or be restarted on) clozapine by having their dose decreased and/or by adding an anticonvulsant (most commonly valproate). CONCLUSIONS: This review reaffirms that individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome may benefit from clozapine therapy even at a low dose, assuming they meet criteria for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and provided no contraindications exist. However, given the increased incidence of seizures in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, the use of prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy should be considered, and hypoparathyroidism/hypocalcemia screened for and corrected before the initiation of clozapine. It is also recommended that clozapine blood levels be monitored.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".