MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409381459

Azithromycin-induced Adolescent Manic Episode with Psychotic Features: A Case Report.

2025· article· en· W4409381459 on OpenAlexaff
Amro H. Mohammad, Emmanuel Adams-Gelinas, Anthi Stefatos

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecBell (Canada)McGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAzithromycinPsychiatryBipolar disorderLithium (medication)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Premarketing clinical trials of azithromycin (AZT) computed a 0.8-percent incidence rate of neurological symptoms, such as headaches and vertigo. Postmarket surveillance reported on psychiatric reactions to AZT that included aggression, agitation, anxiety, delirium, and hallucinations. Nonetheless, these observations do not provide further insight on patient characteristics, disease course, and medical intervention. Methods: infection. Results: (DSM-5) criteria, the patient was diagnosed with medication-induced manic episode with psychotic features. At presentation, the patient received an intramuscular injection consisting of haloperidol 10mg and diphenhydramine 50mg, followed by olanzapine 10mg, diazepam 20mg, and lorazepam 5mg orally on account of his severe agitation. The patient was then maintained on olanzapine 30mg and lorazepam 5mg for six days. Lorazepam was then titrated down to 4mg for two days, then to 3mg in the outpatient setting. The patient demonstrated relative improvement in both the inpatient and outpatient settings, with no relapse despite eventual discontinuation of psychotropic medication. Conclusion: We report, to our knowledge for the first time, that AZT monotherapy might induce a manic episode with psychotic features in adolescent patients with no psychiatric medical history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207