Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) Committee of the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) is pleased to present the CPGs on Cognition in Neuropsychiatric Disorders and Management of Long Stay Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Disorder Patients. The IPS CPGs have been developed through a consultative process over the years. The CPGs cover important aspects of psychiatric clinical practice. The topics have been chosen keeping in mind the guidance required by psychiatrists, both in the public and the private sectors. The Process of making CPG was started in the year 2004; since then, 14 volumes have been published so far. This volume of the CPG includes Practice Guidelines on the Overview of cognitive remediation for various neuropsychiatric disorders, Mild Cognitive Impairment assessment and management, Addressing cognitive impairment in treatable Dementias, Addressing cognitive impairment in vascular Dementias, Addressing cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s and other Dementias, Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia—Assessment and management, Cognitive impairment in bipolar disorders—Assessment and management, Cognitive impairment in autism spectrum disorders—Assessment and management, Post-traumatic cognitive impairment assessment and remedial measures, Assessment of the needs of long-stay Psychiatric patients and patients with substance use disorders in psychiatric institutions, Management of Long-Stay Psychiatric Services; Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 Perspective, Cognitive Impairment in Alcohol use disorder, guidelines for the management of long-stay alcoholic patients, Cognitive impairment in depression—Assessment and management, and Cognitive impairment in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder—Assessment and management. The CPG formation is a dynamic process in view of current research and advancements for clinical practice. The process involves a stepwise progression from the selection of topics, sub-topics, expertise of authors who have worked in those specific areas, presentation in a workshop, discussion by a larger group, revision of the draft seeking comments on the IPS website, and final editing. Thus, the guidelines have been developed through consultative processes and have included experts and experienced clinicians from across the country. The guidelines incorporate the available evidence and best practices from across the world and are cognizant of the challenges and unique service characteristics in the Indian setting. The CPGs were developed keeping in mind the Indian socio-cultural-economic-healthcare context. The development of the CPGs was inclusive of the varied approaches brought in by different experts. The CPGs involved the representation of experts from different parts of the country, working in different settings. This reflects the diversity of views and practices. We did not endorse a straightjacketed uniform approach, and the authors had relative independence in the development of these documents. The aim of these guidelines is to provide guidance and help to the fraternity of psychiatrists. The application of the guidelines in a particular setting, situation, or case should be cognizant of the individual characteristics, constraints, comfort of the practitioner, necessity, and anticipated benefits. Clinical judgement should be exercised while applying the guidelines in a particular circumstance. We hope that the guidelines will enable psychiatrists to promote mental health and address cognition in different psychiatric disorders. Special care has been taken to develop guidelines for long-stay patients suffering from various psychiatric disorders, alcohol, and substance abuse disorders being treated in an institutional setting. So far, such guidelines were not available in the Indian context and the Mental Health Care Act 2017 perspective. We hope these guidelines shall be helpful for all Indian psychiatrists and mental health professionals. The CPG Committee thanks the leadership of IPS for entrusting this important responsibility to us. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".