A review of antipsychotic therapy effectiveness and tolerability among individuals with copy number variants relevant to schizophrenia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although numerous copy number variants (CNVs) are considered pathogenic with respect to the development of schizophrenia, only eight loci have reached genome-wide significance. Reviews/studies characterizing antipsychotic use in this context exist for only three corresponding CNV syndromes. As these disorders also predispose to neurodevelopmental anomalies and various medical comorbidities, affected individuals may be particularly sensitive to the side effects of antipsychotic medications. As such, this review sought to identify and describe all reports of antipsychotic use among individuals with the other genome-wide significant schizophrenia risk CNVs (2p16.3 deletions/ NRXN1 variants, 15q13.3 and 16p11.2 deletions, 7q11.23 duplications, and 1q21.1 deletions or duplications). Only 10 eligible articles describing 29 individuals were included. While treatment response was reasonably good for most individuals, despite variability existing across the specific CNV syndromes, side effects were rarely reported. Above all, this review highlights the need for more case reports/series to be published.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it