Clinical Reasoning in the Use of Long-acting Aripiprazole in Psychosis in Bilateral Nephrectomy on Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatric disorders are common in patients on hemodialysis. To the best of our knowledge there are no reported cases of psychosis developing in hemodialysis patients in the context of nephrectomy, and there is limited data on the use of long-acting antipsychotics in hemodialysis, which are generally not recommended in chronic kidney disease. We present the case of a 40-year-old lady with bilateral nephrectomy receiving hemodialysis who developed psychosis that resulted in her refusing to continue hemodialysis and was irregularly compliant with oral antipsychotics, necessitating the use of a long-acting injection. We report on the approach to clinical reasoning in the choice of aripiprazole and the need for a long-acting injection. Based on its pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties oral aripiprazole 20 mg was commenced and after establishing tolerability and response, the patient was switched to long-acting aripiprazole 400 mg monthly achieving full remission of psychotic symptoms after 6 months with maintained improvement after 12 months. Based on its properties, aripiprazole may be a reasonable option in the treatment of psychosis in patients on hemodialysis with nephrectomy and can be considered even as a long-acting injection in these patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".