Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Lead sentence
All that Greek doesn't seem necessary up front when the etymology of the term isn't scientifically meaningful but does reinforce inaccurate stereotypes. It could be included a bit later together with clarification that it isn't split personality. But the lead does need to include mention of the "negative" emotional symptoms. Pile-Up (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
p.s. the first source, on onset, is from 1991 about a study between 1965-84 in one region of one city; must be a more suitable one. Pile-Up (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Stem Cell Treatment For Schizophrenia Video
Metacognitive training
I suggest again to add a description of the metacognitive training in the psychological and social intervention section. See Treatment of schizophrenia to look at what I wrote there! Especially because of the possible severeness of the illness I think that the treatment section in the main article should inform about every possibility to increase symptom reduction, particularly when a method is investigated well and can be used as an additional treatment with no side effects. Thanks! --Neuschrank (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Source: Elliot Valenstein and Robert Whitaker
"Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is consistently found in schizophrenic individuals. The mainstay of treatment is antipsychotic medication; this type of drug primarily works by suppressing dopamine activity. "
According to one accredited neuroscientist and a award winning medical journalist this was established by studying the drugs and not the brain with the belief that the drugs worked based on the observed behavior of the individual. They cite studies that show that drugs like PCP that increase dopamine do not resemble the psychosis seen in Schizophrenics and that autopsy studies of Schizophrenic people show inconsistencies in this matter. They both also cite numerous studies from the National Institute Of Mental Health and The American Psychiatric Association itself that decreasing dopamine in the brain creates a "therapeutic parkinsons" and a "chemical straight jacket". 24.236.234.23 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
0.4 to 0.6?
So one in 200 people is a schizophrenic? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Symptoms
One of the classes I'm taking at university right now is a seminar all about schizophrenia. After reading what feels like half the literature on the subject, the symptoms of the disorder are no longer classified into positive and negative symptoms, but rather psychosis, negative symptoms and cognitive impairments. This should be updated. Seasunsky (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Research by: B. Whitmer, 30 April 2010 - Here are the symptoms I've uncovered since I started my research on schizophrenia. The two categories of schizophrenia are positive and negative symptoms. Each person with the disorder is diagnosed according to which category their symptoms match. Positive symptoms include delusions, hallucinations, irregular behavior, and paranoia. In contrary to positive symptoms, negative symptoms are quieter to the naked eye. Negative symptoms include social withdrawal, depression, flat mood, and no motivation. The negative symptoms are harder to detect in an individual because they are not as predominant. Although negative symptoms are less dramatic, they are just as crucial to the brain as positive symptoms. According to Snyder, Gur, and Andrews, authors of the book "Me, Myself, and Them", "it's not uncommon for others to misinterpret negative symptoms as signs of coldness, or laziness."
Why?
I felt the need to put this out there for comment.
Research by Mackay, F.(2006) on mice found that stress on mice had the effect of T cell suppression by NPY (signaling hormone).
Unrelated research by the US National Institute of Drug Administration (NIDA), that a stressed (psychological stress) individual has characteristically low levels of dopamine.
Low levels of dopamine may correspond with lower T cell activity if the above mouse study is accurate.
Given that schizophrenia has high levels of dopamine, is it such a large jump to hypothesise that one reason for a schizophrenic state is so that the dopamine and therefore T cell function is elevated/restored?
Is it therefore also reasonable to hypothesise, that a schizophrenic state may serve as a defense that prevents a prolonged stressed state occurring? In doing so, prevents the negative effect due to the stress suppressing the immune system and leaving the organism/individual vulnerable. Pizone (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Additional suggestions
I suggest to add a movie named "Karthik Calling Karthik" under I conic depictions in the article. It is an Indian movie based completely on a guy suffering from schizophrenia. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Gautam1411 (talk o contribs) 02:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest adding the known qualitative tests for schitzophrenia.
Besides psychiatric diagnosing methods. There are also qualitative tests for schitzophrenia which are useful in uncertain cases.
- Most of the schitzophrenics can see through certain optical illusionslike "the hollow-mask illusion".[1]
- A blood test for schitzophrenia will be available soon.[2]
These tests only apply only for schizophrenia. It is naturally possible to have psychotic symptoms because of other illnesses, drugs or other conditions in environment.
Retroviral cause: Someone needs to read the latest DISCOVER magazine, June 2010. The article on page 58 called The Insanity Virus is about the theory that schizophrenia is caused by a retrovirus that for the most part remains dormant in all of us except those who exhibit signs of the said disease. Could a good wikipedia editor review this article and add the information here? May 9, 2010 --Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.214.194 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Freevers, 21 April 2010
{{editsemiprotected}} put a wiki link to the word Soteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteria
Freevers (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Cannabis and schizophrenia information needs update/revision
There has never, ever been a causal link established between cannabis and schizophrenia. Yes, the article does mention this, but then it goes on to offer information only from one side of the debate. If you follow the money on any report that's claimed a link between cannabis and schizophrenia, you'll find they've been sponsored by governments, pharmaceutical corporations and other parties with obvious conflicts-of-interest when it comes to research in cannabis.
When someone truly impartial who doesn't have a buck to make off the prohibition of cannabis does a study, say, Keele University or The Charité, you see much different results. Can someone with an account please include information from the following sources in this article? Also, if possible, any mention of cannabis being in any way responsible for schizophrenia should be removed, or at least included with mention of its criticisms and opposing findings, considering how easy it is to prove the falsehood and duplicity within those "reports".
http://www.ukcia.org/research/keele_study/Assessing-the-impact-of-cannabis-use-on-trend-in-diagnosed-schizophrenia.pdf
https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/pharmaco/doi/10.1055/s-2005-918628
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health3.shtml
In the interests of keeping the truth available... 69.196.147.119 (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Anandamism
--K10wnsta (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, one thing I've noticed about the studies that are in favor the causality hypothesis (and I've read several of them) is that the vast majority of them have either Drs. Robin Murray and/or Jim van Os somewhere in the list of authors (though often not the first authors). Anyone else ever notice that? Hmmmmm.Ajax151 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hormone vs. Neurotransmitter
Neurotransmitters including dopamine, serotonin, and glutamate are incorrectly called hormones throughout this article. I don't have the time to correct these mistakes, but I thought I would bring it to the attention of the wikipedia community. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.1.230 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have found different opinions on this subject. Here is the one:
Yes, dopamine is a hormone which, by definition, is released by endocrine cells directly into the bloodstream, to have an effect elsewhere in the body. Dopamine is release by the hypothalamus to inhibit the release of prolactin in the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland. It is also released by the adrenal medulla to constrict blood vessels as part of the 'fight or flight' reaction. Dr Sarah Brewer, author of The Human Body (Quercus).
Main article on dopamine also calls it hormone. But if you decide to change word "hormone" with "neurotransmitter" that if fine with me, I think both are right. :-) Innab (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The "Induced Thoughts" Section of the Article
None of the references in this section actually give any information about schizophrenia. So, whoever wrote the section basically made it up as they went along - and the main idea of the section ( that schizophrenia can develop in individuals who "think about feeling euphoria to induce euphoria" ) is completely unfounded. I suggest cleaning up this section, or maybe even just delete it entirely. It is misinformation. Articles on psychological disorders should only consist of general information about the disorder, and technical information -- this is so people don't try to diagnosis themselves, especially when the information isn't even accurate! --Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.137.120 (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to flag the section. It qualifies as being "original research" (which is against wiki guidelines for this type of article), and none of the information is verifiable. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.137.120 (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"if there evidences that: "A" is connected to "B", "B" is connected to "C", "C" is connected to "D", then it makes sense to me that "A" is connected to "D"."
Innab, the above quote from your post is a classic example of synthesis and is not allowed in wikipedia articles. Did you read the WP:SYN, link that I gave you? No reliable source that I have seen says schizophrenia is due to "addictive" repetative thinking. Repetative thinking is more likely to be classed as an obessive disorder, anyway. Schizophrenia is not addiction, it is a chronic psychosis.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Increased dopamine 'consistently found' alteration
I've just altered a sentence in the introductory paragraph which said "Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is consistently found in schizophrenic individuals". This is not the case, as increased dopamine activity is only inconsistently found in people with schizophrenia, although, on average it is more commonly present (see the recent review by Howes and Kapur). This claim doesn't appear in the main text. Hence I've altered it to "Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is commonly found in people with schizophrenia". - Vaughan (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
schizophrenia not to be confused with ...
I have removed the previous content of this section. Wikipedia talk pages are intended to be used for discussions related to improving the article, and any changes to an article must be based on reputable published sources. Other information, even if true, is not usable unless there are published sources to back it up. If we let this page turn into an argument about whether mind control really exists based on personal experiences, it will turn into total chaos and won't lead to any improvements in the article. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Refrences please
This article is well written and all but it seems to be majorly lacking in sources and cross refrencing in many sections.Please someone fix it. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimakesmart (talk o contribs) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Crespi on autism/schizophrenia link
Please see the discussion at Talk:Autism#Crespi on autism/shizophrenia link for the new text added here and at autism. Also, this article still needs a review for overreliance on primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Biographies of People With Schizophrenia
- Nasar, Sylvia (2001). A Beautiful Mind: The Life of Mathematical Genius and Nobel Laureate John Nash. New York: Touchstone. ISBN 0-743-22457-4.
- Jiang, William (2010). A Schizophrenic Will: A Story of Madness, A Story of Hope. New York: Createspace. ISBN 1-451-501224-4 .
- Neugenboren, Robert (2003). Imagining Robert:My Brother, Madness, and Survival, a Memoir. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-813-53296-5.
- Saks, Elyn (2008). The Center Cannot Hold. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 1-401-30944-5.
- Steele, Ken (2001). The Day the Voices Stopped. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-08226-2.
- Schiller, Lori (1996). The Quiet Room: A Journey out of the Torment of Madness. New York: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0-446-67133-9.
Kd3qc (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
semiprotection (again)
I think the pending changes trial was unsuccessful in this case - the trickle of unsuitable info increased. Anyway, I've swtiched it back to semiprot to give us a breather in pruning...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Cite journal replaced with vcite journal
This article has too many primary sources, resulting in slow load time and difficult editing; I've replaced cite journal with {{vcite journal}}.[3]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No laboratory test for schizophrenia exists. ref name "DSM-IV-TR"
re this edit ...every mental health condition has no laboratory test - why the mention of this in the introduction? the addition implies the POV that schizophrenia is a biological disease... Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
VeriPsych(TM) in the first paragraph?
Smacks a bit of advertisement to me. Is Biomarker Insights a reputable journal or mainly an industry-sponsored one? Looking at the paper here, it seems to be more of the latter. I see they don't sell the test to anyone else, only perform it in their lab, so they don't need (or avoid) FDA approval for the test itself that way. [4] Tijfo098 (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Rename this article
I would like to propose that this article is renamed 'Dysfunctional Perception Syndrome' with a redirect from 'Schizophrenia' to it. 'Schizophrenia' has always been a meaningless bucket-term and a junk diagnosis only favoured by lazy psychiatrists.. The condition has nothing whatever to do with a split-brain so the derivation of the word has always been wrong. The Japanese have already renamed this condition. There are many health professionals and mental survivor's groups who agree that the condition is mis-named. See http://www.intervoiceonline.org/2010/2/7/renaming-schizophrenia for one example. You can find many more. I will so tag the article and the debate may be held.
SmokeyTheCat 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find the relevant tag. Because I am not an administrator? Perhaps some other editor could tag this article as I have proposed please? Thanks in advance.
SmokeyTheCat 12:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You may want to join the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_construction_of_schizophrenia) for Social construction of schizophrenia for more on that debate , or indeed to improve and edit the current article , currently rated as C class by someone from the wikidisability project. (Darwinerasmus (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC))
Small Spelling Error
Under the Section "Economic Burden" unemployment is spelled "unenployment'
Schizophrenics sensitive to gluten and dairy.
http://www.celiac.com/articles/22317/1/Hippies-Werent-the-Only-Ones-Tripping-in-the-Sixties/Page1.html --Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.74.146 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Cannabis
Newer review from the authors of the 2007 Lancet article: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/193/5/357 (2008); this one is about outcomes. Robin Murray seems to think the danger of causing psychosis is greater (see his bio); I'm not sure if that's wroth mentioning here though. Also a 2010 meta-analysis http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/6/1115.abstract finds that 1/4 of the schizophrenia patients could be diagnosed with CUD (cannabis use disorder). Also a 2010 10-year longitudinal study http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/987 (not a review though) found that cannabis worsens the outcomes. That seems to agree with a 2009 study on long-term outcomes of discontinuing cannabis after a first episode http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/11/13/schbul.sbp126.full Tijfo098 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Article issues
I think that this is a little shaky in the FA department. Here are some concerns I found:
- First paragraph of "signs and symptoms" is entirely unsourced.
- "Research suggests" weasel-wording in "positive and negative symptoms" section.
- [Citation needed] under Diagnosis header.
- "In a recent study" under Substance Abuse header -- how recent? Don't use recent.
- Medication header has a couple one sentence paragraphs and another unqualified "recent."
- Second paragraph of "iconic cultural depictions" is unsourced.
- Many references are lacking page numbers and/or have broken DOIs.
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat o (Otters want attention) 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Encephalitis lethargica
Regarding this edit: The NEJM review of that book specifically questioned that assertion: "How can he be so certain that persons with Kraepelin's schizophrenia in fact suffered from encephalitis lethargica and that therefore today the outcome of the disease is seen in an unnecessarily gloomy light?". You may want to read the rest: Van Gijn, J. (2002). "Book Review Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill by Robert Whitaker. 334 pp. New York, Perseus, 2002. $27. 0-7382-0385-8". New England Journal of Medicine. 346 (26): 2096. doi:10.1056/NEJM200206273462620. . Tijfo098 (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Metapsychology online reviews is a reasonably good source of book reviews in my experience. There's probably a review in PsycCRITIQUES as well, but I did not check. And MOR is free to access, so they have Google ads. I normally have them blocked, so I don't normally see what you say they advertise, and on a spot check, I don't get the one you say you see, but you can probably get one like that on occasion. Google probably doesn't think I need a psychiatrist. :-D Tijfo098 (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There are more reviews on Talk:Mary Boyle. One even said "But we like to remind that biology is not a right-wing plot." Tijfo098 (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Side note
E. Fuller Torrey's hypothesis on Toxoplasma gondii is not mentioned in this article either, and there's a good reason for that too: it's not mainstream. Ironically, Boyle and Torrey are at opposite ideological poles on mental illness causes, and particularly treatment. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way
Searching for citations of Boyle's book, I found this 2010 BJP paper of some relevance here: Craddock, N.; Owen, M. J. (2010). "The Kraepelinian dichotomy - going, going... But still not gone". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 196: 92-95. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.109.073429. PMC 2815936 . PMID 20118450. . Boyle was cited in one of the five letters to the editor this paper triggered: [8]. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Other research
Zuardi et al., 2006, Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug, Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (2006) 39: 421-429 http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v39n4/6164.pdf
A snip from the abstract says it all but the paper is worth a read. "In addition, open case reports of schizophrenic patients treated with CBD and a preliminary report of a controlled clinical trial comparing CBD with an atypical antipsychotic drug have confirmed that this cannabinoid can be a safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenia."
I am unaware of the psychiatric research into the levels of THC versus CBD in street cannabis. It is noteworthy that the drug does induce something that looks psychosis-like, i.e. it scores on PANSS and other scales of psychosis as looking like psychosis in lab conditions however if users are sat in front of a TV watching Cheech and Chong it is clearly a pleasant experience whereas pathological psychosis for many is an intensely distressing experience.
Cannabis in one of many entheogen and can be used for purposes other than recreational highs. There are non-pathological interpretations of psychosis and schizophrenia advocated by organisations such as Intervoice and the Hearing Voices Network which seek to apply meaning to the experiences pathologised by psychiatry as schizophrenia. Rufus May is an advocate of an approach to deal with voice hearing, delusions and hallucinations as real
Morethanhuman (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Contradiction about lifetime prevalence
There is a contradiction in the article about the lifetime prevalence: in the introduction it is given as "a global lifetime prevalence of around 1.5%", in the section Epidemiology it is given as "The lifetime prevalence of schizophreni [...] is commonly given at 1%. However, a 2002 systematic review of many studies found a lifetime prevalence of 0.55%." 87.212.160.173 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Journalism about schizophrenia
Perhaps that topic deserves a few sentences by itself: [9] [10] Tijfo098 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, I see we cover [11], but not the other two papers from the fabled press release (all in the same issue of Nature), so we're doing slightly worse journalism. ;-) The best write-up seems this one (but, hey it came a day later, so it doesn't count.) Tijfo098 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit regarding poor use of words
The sentence under 'Postive and Negative Symptoms': "Negative symptoms are things that are not present in schizophrenic persons but are normally found in healthy persons, that is, symptoms that reflect the loss or absence of normal traits or abilities." can be written better to avoid use of "things" . I would suggest "Negative symptoms are a result of traits or abilities that are not present in schizophrenic persons, but are normally found in healthy persons." 76.175.239.170 (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to somewhat agree on the comments of the unnamed poster. I might only be in the process of getting my Masters in Psychology, and thus not a true 'expert', but the section on 'Positive and Negative Symptoms' just seems off. The way negative symptoms are portrayed (i.e. only called that because they are difficult to treat, as opposed to positive symptoms, which according to the article are easier and more responsive to treatment and thus called 'positive') is inaccurate - it has more to do with the LACK of symptoms that are usually expected, such as an inexpressive face. I would like to have a discussion on this section, and a forum of ideas and sources, otherwise I feel this section needs to be reviewed by someone higher in the science/medical field. People use Wiki as an important source of information, and if we are giving them something inaccurate, we need to discuss ways to fix it, because mis-information is worse than no information at all. Thank you! Barbiegurl676 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
A spelling bug
It's in "These symptoms gererally respond well to medication." Replace "gererally" with "generally". Good article, by the way. Alexander.gotmanov (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Iconic cultural depictions
Add reference to the movie Clean Shaven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean,_Shaven which tries to objectively view schizophrenia and those who are affected by it. Linuxsims (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological pathologies
Schizophrenia is a neurological disorder and after reading the very meager section on the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological pathologies I have a few papers to suggest for expanding this section and for making it much more inclusive of the data. The following are PMIDs:
- 11343862 A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia.
- 20954428 Structural neuroimaging in schizophrenia: from methods to insights to treatments.
- 20237131 Diffusion tensor tractography findings in schizophrenia across the adult lifespan.
Until this section is vastly improved I really don't see how it can continue to be an FA. It's just missing lots of very important information. Basket of Puppies 00:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Classically, "neurological" disorders pertains to disorders that can be linked to pathologies of specific regions of the nervous system. For example, Gerstmann syndrome is considered a neurological disorder because it can be linked with pathologies in left parietal cortex, as is dyscalculia. Conversely, disorders that are due to widespread differences in neurotransmitters or brain communication are considered "psychiatric" or "mental", and generally linked to disorders of overall thought or emotion (depression, OCD, schizophrenia, etc). This is the point that Casliber has been arguing (correctly in my opinion). The problem here is that mental disorder, which the psychiatric disorder page redirects to, seems to carry the implication that it's just "all in your head", while it is indeed clear that there is a genetic and biological basis for schizophrenia, as Basket of Puppies rightly argues. So, "neurological" doesn't apply in this case, since sz is not linked to just one brain region, but "mental" alone also feels inappropriate. Simply insisting on adding neurological also doesn't address the deeper issues, but neither does leaving "mental" alone. Perhaps "neuropsychiatric" in parallel with neuropsychiatry would be more appropriate than purely "neurological" or "mental." Edhubbard (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Reviews
A few reviews as it is time to get down to work:
- van Os J, Kapur S (2009). "Schizophrenia". Lancet. 374 (9690): 635-45. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60995-8. PMID 19700006.
- Schultz SH, North SW, Shields CG (2007). "Schizophrenia: a review". Am Fam Physician. 75 (12): 1821-9. PMID 17619525. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
- Rigby P, Alexander J (2008). "Understanding schizophrenia". Nurs Stand. 22 (28): 49-56; quiz 58, 60. PMID 18429458.
- Picchioni MM, Murray RM (2007). "Schizophrenia". BMJ. 335 (7610): 91-5. doi:10.1136/bmj.39227.616447.BE. PMC 1914490 . PMID 17626963.
- Kane JM, Correll CU (2010). "Pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia". Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 12 (3): 345-57. PMID 20954430.
- Lybrand J, Caroff S (2009). "Management of schizophrenia with substance use disorders". Psychiatr. Clin. North Am. 32 (4): 821-33. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2009.09.002. PMID 19944886.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Citation style
BoP, please do not alter the established citation style on this article, per WP:CITE. [12] This (and most medical articles) follows the Diberri template filler style, with vcite, and FAs must have a consistent citation style. You can find the Diberri template filler on my user page, you plug in the PMID and it returns a cite journal, and then replace that with vcite. Please gain consensus for your changes on talk; besides the change in citation style, I do not see consensus for your other changes above, so I have reverted. Productive work is underway; please discuss your edits on talk and follow consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Changes to text do not match the ref
The ref says "The diagnosis of schizophrenia is associated with demonstrable alterations in brain structure and changes in dopamine neurotransmission, the latter being directly related to hallucinations and delusions." Lancet09. This edit [14] changed it to "Those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia have both changes in brain structure and brain chemistry." from "Those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia have both changes in brain structure and neurotransmission of dopamine." and I am unable to find where the ref following it supports this wording.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Formating
One does not discuss mechanism based on imaging modality. I have moved these section to the subpage. It needs to be presented better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Problem!
I am confused. BoP had concerns that this article was based on old primary research and it needed to be fixed. He than goes and adds:
Computed Tomography scans of schiznoprenic brains show several pathologies. The brain ventricles are enlarged as compared to normal brains. The ventricles hold Cerebrospinal Fluid(CSF) and enlarged ventricles indicate a loss of brain volume. Additionally, schizophrenic brains are widened sulci as compared to normal brains, also with increased CSF volumes and reduced brain volume.Jernigan TL, Zatz LM, Moses JA, Berger PA. Computed tomography in schizophrenics and normal volunteers. I. Fluid volume. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 1982;39(7):765-70. PMID [//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7165476 7165476.]
Electroencephalograms (EEG) measure the electrical impulses on the surface of the brain. EEGs have demonstrated abnormalities in the schizophrenic brain, including nerve conduction in the temporal lobe depending on handedness of the patient.Holinger DP, Faux SF, Shenton ME, et al.. Reversed temporal region asymmetries of P300 topography in left- and right-handed schizophrenic subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;84(6):532-7. PMID [//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1280199 1280199.]
Both old primary research studies???Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Pathophysiology
I've removed this
ErbB4 protein abnormalities are also associated with neuropathophysiology of the schizophrenic brain.
because the ErbB4 association is only suggested for Han Chinese schizophrenics. I think this is too new, speculative and detailed for a general article on schizophrenia. Anthony (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
OWN and probably leaving
No one owns any articles on Wikipedia. That is policy. Not a guideline, not an essay. It is clear that a group of editors feels otherwise and is willing to keep this article with vast stretches of inaccurate information rather than entertain for a moment that someone outside should be allowed to edit. I came to this article because I am a graduate student who researches schizophrenia among other neurodegenerative brain diseases. What I saw absolutely horrified me. In an attempt to improve the article I formed a talkpage discussion which got nowhere. I then opened a featured article review which helped and I agreed to improve the neural/neurological section. I spent 3 straight hours on it, changing it from what literally looked like vomit on the screen to discreet sections divided by neuroimaging and electrophysiology using (mostly) secondary review articles (which fully qualify as secondary sources) where our readership could learn about each approach to the schizophrenic brain. Again came along the OWNers of this article and not only reverted my edits but also reverted the several secondary sources. This is a major net less for the article. I have been discussing this with colleagues at university and they all agree this article is a major embarrassment for Wikipedia. My good faith attempts at improving the article have been met with resistance the likes of which is truly horrifying. 15,000 people a day view this article and are reading completely inaccurate information. I likely will return here only to show friends at school just how poor this article is and then explain how it's rated as a "Featured Article". Until then I will go off to work collaboratively with other editors who do not feel they OWN anything. Basket of Puppies 16:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Progress on size
This version, before Doc James began the substantial rewrite to incorporate updated secondary reviews, had 229 citations and
This version, with probably a bit more than half of the article reworked so far, has 171 citations, is much more readable, and now at least I can load the article to work on it:
As the text stabilizes, it will need a full WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK review, but it's probably too soon to do that now. I'm still concerned about the very long paragraph in the "Neurological" section (which I believe should be "Neural"), and don't know if it's been checked yet for primary sources and accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Comorbidity review
A review to be added yet. Buckley PF, Miller BJ, Lehrer DS, Castle DJ (2009). "Psychiatric comorbidities and schizophrenia". Schizophr Bull. 35 (2): 383-402. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbn135. PMC 2659306 . PMID 19011234. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Neurological disorder
Really? We would need a review article for this. I somehow do not think my colleges in neurology would be impressed if I called them for someone I had diagnosed with schizophrenia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
How will we view schizophrenia in 2030? Schizophrenia today is a chronic, frequently disabling mental disorder that affects about one per cent of the world's population. After a century of studying schizophrenia, the cause of the disorder remains unknown. Treatments, especially pharmacological treatments, have been in wide use for nearly half a century, yet there is little evidence that these treatments have substantially improved outcomes for most people with schizophrenia. These current unsatisfactory outcomes may change as we approach schizophrenia as a neurodevelopmental disorder with psychosis as a late, potentially preventable stage of the illness. This 'rethinking' of schizophrenia as a neurodevelopmental disorder, which is profoundly different from the way we have seen this illness for the past century, yields new hope for prevention and cure over the next two decades.
About terminology
I got interested in this discussion by way of my previous editing at Causes of schizophrenia and Mechanisms of schizophrenia. I've read the talk here, and something jumped out at me. Perhaps, by my pointing it out as a previously uninvolved editor, I can offer something that will be helpful to those of you who are involved.
I just realized that some of the disagreement here arises from how editors with different kinds of academic and professional backgrounds use language differently. These differences appear to me to be causing editors, who are actually not that much in disagreement, to misunderstand one another, and to perceive more disagreement than really exists. I totally understand what Doc James said about psychiatrists, not neurologists, treating patients who have schizophrenia. And I'm further very aware of, within psychiatry, the disagreements over biological/pharmacological versus analytical/behavioral/cognitive schools of thought and practice. (I'm a neuroscientist with a PhD in biochemistry, by the way, if anyone wonders.)
So it strikes me that someone with my background, and, I believe, the general reading public, would understand "neurological" to refer in a general way to something that has to do with stuff going wrong, biologically, in the brain, in contrast to, for example, the old discredited assertion that the disease is caused by a bad mother. Now that might just sound wrong, oh so wrong, to someone to whom "neurology" connotes a particular medical consult, and may further rankle someone who thinks professionally about how to counsel patients and who doesn't want to just send someone packing with a bottle of pills. But research studies referring to "neurodevelopmental" components are looking at something different--things that might, perhaps, be the underlying basic mechanisms of the disease--than are studies examining, for example, the co-occurrence of cannabis use--no credible source claims that if you smoke a joint you will wake up the next morning with schizophrenia.
So, in discussing here how best to characterize what the sources are saying about "neural", "neurological", "neurodevelopmental", or "neurodegenerative", please consider how one's accustomed reaction to those words may be different from how most readers may understand them. A source may talk about, for example, ventricular or sulcal enlargement, without in any way discounting the effects of social environment on the expression of the disease. With that, some of the perception in this talk of controversy may smooth over.
Oh, and by the way, Thomas R. Insel isn't just affiliated with the NIH; he is the Director of the US National Institute on Mental Health. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Recentism and primary studies
I've removed two edits that fail to conform to WP:MEDRS and reflect WP:RECENTISM-- one a rat study. This is a broad overview article, and we shouldn't use these kinds of recent primary studies that haven't been subjected to secondary review; in fact, we're working to remove such sourcing from this article so it can survive WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Emotion in negative symptoms
I'm having trouble understanding this from Schizophrenia#Positive and negative symptoms
Negative symptoms are symptoms that are altered or defect emotional responses that respond less successfully to medication.
I can't access the text, have just read a couple of chapters about negative symptoms from 2 other texts and still can't see what this sentence is trying to say. Can someone with access please clarify? Anthony (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
why is a good 2008 meta analysis removed CBT is an effetive treatment
so there are two review articles about CBT. surely a 2008 meta analysis (in a good journal) stating that CBT is benefical cant be trumped by a article in 2010. CBT is a recommended treatment. Cheers earlypsychosis (on holiday) --Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.183.15 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Additional Reading or New Fictional Accounts in Literature Section
Having never dealt with Schizophrenia on a personal level, it remained a topic of mystery for a long time. As with any type of issue, people still treat mental illness as if it is some disease that can be caught like a virus or common cold. I know tolerance has progressed, but society still proves to be intolerant of those they deem to be different. I propose that in the additional reading section or a new section related to fictional representations in literature, that Wally Lamb's wonderful and heartbreaking book "I Know This Much is True" be included for those who want to witness the effects that Schizophrenia has on families. Although this book is fictional it takes a clinical approach in showing how, if untreated, it can cause the individual to slip further away from reality. Wally Lamb shows Schizophrenia from its onset and he pulls no punches. It is my belief that this book could shed some light on an important subject ... Especially for family members who might be searching for any depiction of Schizophrenia related to a patient choosing not to take medication. Please include this very important fictional account of Schizophrenia.Tstrothe (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Reviews on prognosis
Intend to add these:
- Jobe TH, Harrow M (2005). "Long-term outcome of patients with schizophrenia: a review". Can J Psychiatry. 50 (14): 892-900. PMID 16494258.
- Menezes NM, Arenovich T, Zipursky RB (2006). "A systematic review of longitudinal outcome studies of first-episode psychosis". Psychol Med. 36 (10): 1349-62. doi:10.1017/S0033291706007951. PMID 16756689. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
- Warner R (2009). "Recovery from schizophrenia and the recovery model". Curr Opin Psychiatry. 22 (4): 374-80. doi:10.1097/YCO.0b013e32832c920b. PMID 19417668.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Images
There are some interesting images in other languages that might be good in the signs and symptoms section if we could get a translation... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Problem
I am unable to find where in this ref this text is supported "The use of psychological treatments and medication has been found effective in reducing the chances of people who fulfill the high-risk criteria from developing full-blown schizophrenia."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Research section
I am the first to admit that I know very little about schizophrenia--most of what I know is limited to the UpToDate articles I have read over the past few days. But I still wonder whether the research section is appropriate for this article. Mayn of the sources seem to be dated (c. 2000) and/or are primary sources. UpToDate hardly mentions current research controversies. Why that is I am not sure, but I think we should consider following what they do. NW (Talk) 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, just looking at research controversies - Andreasen is a pretty key figure as she's the one who really crystallised many of the terms in the mental state examination that we all use today. In some ways I like this bit, in others it just seems like alot of discussion about fuzziness in diagnosis. There is a message I guess that is good to impress upon the reader that DSM is a research tool (hahaha, said with a straight face as it is used as a bible) which classifies on symptom clusters not neurobiology, and there is ongoing investigation into how we classify it. If this is suggested elsewhere I think the 'bottom subsection can be discarded, but otherwise I am musing on it...Casliber (talk · contribs)
HERV
I came across this interesting article suggesting schizophrenia is caused by an endogenous retrovirus and thought it would be appropriate to mention here, along with the well-known correlation between schizophrenia and toxoplasmosis. Rather than propose a specific edit (since the article is protected and I'm not at all knowledgeable about the subject), I'll just leave the suggestion here. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Cannibis
These text is in the subarticle and IMO is not sufficiently well reffed to belong here:
Despite increases in cannabis consumption in the 1960s and 1970s in western society, rates of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia remained relatively stable.
The issue is that local data from the UK is being presented not as a single local study. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Schizophrenics sensitive to gluten
http://www.celiac.com/articles/22317/1/Hippies-Werent-the-Only-Ones-Tripping-in-the-Sixties/Page1.html "Having learned about this connection between celiac disease and schizophrenia, Dr. Dohan then undertook a study in which he examined hospital admission rates for schizophrenia both during periods of plenty and during World War II grain shortages. He found that there was, indeed, a reduction in admissions during grain shortages, which normalized when ample grains became available again.
Dohan's next step, along with several colleagues, was to design and conduct a single-blind cross-over study of schizophrenic patients in a locked ward. They found that symptoms of schizophrenia abated on a gluten-free, dairy-free diet. These same patients relapsed on re-introduction of these foods. " --Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.67.87 (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
"He estimates that 3% of schizophrenic people could potentially benefit from such a diet." http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/news/20040219/gluten-intolerance-linked-to-schizophrenia
http://www.healthyfellow.com/219/gluten-intolerance-and-schizophrenia/
The more intoductury research trials are free. A more recent study being number eight. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=%22Schizophrenia%2Fdiet%20therapy%22%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D
--Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.67.87 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That 2006 review doesn't identify the subset. It seems to be using the term "subset" to mean "some". Its "summation" reads:
- The current literature suggests that a certain subset of schizophrenic patients may benefit from a gluten-free diet.
- Shared immunlogic abnormalities and genetic associations suggest a common underlying vulnerability between celiac disease and schizophrenia.
It warns:
- A large portion of the literature on the effectiveness of gluten withdrawal on schizophrenic symptoms has come from one research team.
- Large randomized clinical trials are necessary to verify these claims of an association between schizophrenia and celiac disease.
(Emphasis mine.) Without the support of other WP:MEDRSs, it may be WP:UNDUE and too early, but this association has been suggested for decades, so ought to be mentioned somewhere. Perhaps Causes of schizophrenia? (Provided the uncertainty and need for much more - and more rigorous - investigation is mentioned). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Done Thank you to the OP for bringing this up, and everybody for the lively and informative discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Anthony for adding it that way to the Causes page. I'm kicking myself for not suggesting that from the outset. And agreeing as well with DocJames, Garrondo, and Casliber, I can point out that it actually has been a problem at the Causes page that adding every pet theory that has come down the pike made that page into rather a mess. I think it's good that current attention to these pages growing out of the FAR is cleaning this stuff up, and it's all the more important to attend to that on this main page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't be there either-- we're just shuffling chairs on the Titanic by moving every pet theory based on primary research to sub-articles, and if they aren't in reviews, they don't belong there. There's a very long list of disorders and diseases claiming links to gluten intolerance; unless we have a secondary review that considers it important, let's stop shuffling fringe theories off to sub-articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If Cannibus contributed to a neurological 'disease' in 1% of people, then why is a cure in 3% of a people not something to be mentioned? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.61.28 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Lede
The lede isn't supposed to have any referenced statements in it; those are supposed to go in the body. I suggest that an editor or editors fix the lede. I would but I am actively avoiding editing this article until consensus is achieved for every change. Basket of Puppies 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Homelessness
New section time. I'd like to add a sentence about schizophrenia and homelessness. Lots out there for mental health leading to homelessness or as risk factor or as high incidence in homeless populations. It's harder however to get it specifically on schizophrenia and not psychosis or affective disorder. The US's NIMH took a stab at it, where they cite this source - 20% of people diagnosed with schizophrenia were homeless a year later (San Diego, CA and N = 10,040, yr. 1999-2000). Doc James asked for some global data on this - sadly WHO's mojo is ooooold, how old are we allowed to go? The stuff I've found use older definitions of schizophrenia from the DSM-III. Nothing newer than about 15 years. JoeSmack Talk 02:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I found this review of literature [17] - out of 8 countries reviewed (several European nations, Australia, Canada, Brazil) and 10 with sturdy methodology: the prevalence range was 4-16% and the weighted average prevalence was 11%. JoeSmack Talk 03:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nash
I fixed the caption because it was really misleading. Nash did all his award winning work before developing significant symptoms. (Nobels take decades to be awarded sometimes, and game theory took a long time to be found useful by economists.) Also, I did not kill or cure him when I wrote "suffered", but according to himself he had no significant symptoms for many years now, even though he is unmedicated since the 70s. Some of this is mentioned in the article here on the movie, but it's covered at length in the book. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Further reading
As stated in the FAR this section is very subjective: there are thousands of possible "further reading" books in a disease such as schizophrenia (As a fast tests more than 600000 books in google books when searching for schizophrenia.) Unless there is some very good reason to have one of this in the article they do not really add that much info. I have moved section here so it can be integrated in article as sources as recommended in WP:MEDMOS if considered a good option. --Garrondo (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Japanese script
Do Japanese letter in the society section really add any value to the section? Not really sure...--Garrondo (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
nl-wiki; useful information
May I draw your attention to the information that is on the Dutch wikipedia site (translation by google). It might be an idea to add some of this information in the english wiki.
The research literature is at present the most clear the following picture about the cause of schizophrenia: Meiosis is the process of dividing cells in humans. In meiosis the chromosome pairs split in such a way that a representative of each pair goes to one daughter. This, per cell, the number of chromosomes halved, while each attribute (gene) still remains. As the information for each attribute is attached, solely by chance. Besides the random process in terms of characteristics, there is a second random process taking place. In this second random process in the DNA segments of DNA randomly omitted (deletion), added (duplication), moving (translocation) and inverted (inversion). This process occurs more genetic differences between people to apply. This process explains why even identical twins are not genetically 100% identical.
Problem of the second random process is that genetic mistakes can occur around the time of conception. In particular by the deletion and duplication chromosomes can be shorter or longer or there may occur a complete extra chromosome. The result of a spontaneous change in the structure of DNA is a so-called copy number variation. The emergence of a copy number variations can chromosomes of unequal size and unequal number are grouped together into a new cell. If this occurs around conception, is created from this first cell, a man with a genetic variation. This can be either positive or negative. In positive cases arises from a man who is capable of a special skill that is evaluated positively, such as sports or science. In negative cases, you have to deal with a syndrome or a severe disability.
Nature seems to choose for this spontaneous process, because in the long term genetic level leads to a "better kind of man", when it comes to adapting the organism to its environment. Positive results will breed, making positive adjustment is going to spread, while for negative results will be forthcoming.
Based on the meiosis process can probably schizophrenia in two ways.
* 1. a spontaneous deviation (a 'novo' the situation): here there are two chromosomes together with a copy number variation as a result of the meiosis process. * 2. a parent is unknowingly a carrier of a chromosome with a copy number variation and gives it to the conception through to the child what the child has other consequences than to the parent.
So there are too many pieces to meiotic or too few bits in the DNA occur at a specific location. This is the basis for a syndrome.
Then you may experience problems in the development of the embryo in the first months of pregnancy. Approximately 20 to 40 days after fertilization is wrong on both disorders in the construction of the body parts and brains, which triggers a chain reaction that both autism and schizophrenia may yield. Autism and schizophrenia are also part of a continuum in which both the autism spectrum as the spectrum of schizoid valt.Dit explains why in families with autism often find people with schizophrenia.
Autism and schizophrenia are no exceptions stand alone, but a consequence of a spontaneous genetic change that results in a syndrome. Depending on the severity of the genetic change, the degree of autism spectrum disorder or schizoid spectrum disorders differ. In all lesions are a number of similar characteristics to see:
* Reduced emotion recognition * Problems with the theory of mind (ability to form a picture from the perspective of one another and indirectly of itself); * Problems with the central coherence [4] (the world is composed of fragments without direct connection to each other and must be puzzled); * Catatonia (immobility or typical stereotyped movements with or without sound); * Problems with executive functions (higher control functions of the brains); * The exceptions are more common in men than in women; * Echolalia.
There have now discovered a nine locations on the DNA where the syndromes are given, which are related to autism or schizophrenia, the so-called 'hotspots': 1q21.1 (chromosome 1, long arm, band 21.1), 3q29, 15q13 .3, 16p11.2 (chromosome 16, short arm, band 11.2), 16p13.1, 16q21, 17p12, 21q11.2 and 21q13.3. In a number of hotspots is both autism and schizophrenia was observed at that location. In other cases the observed one form to another and even sought. Statistically it is found that a deletion of 1q21.1 (1q21.1-deficiency syndrome) was significantly higher in schizophrenia and prevents a duplication of 1q21.1 (1q21.1-duplication syndrome) was significantly more autistic persons. Similar observations were made of chromosome 16 at 16p11.2 (deficiency, autism / duplication: schizophrenia), chromosome 22 at 22q11.21 (deficiency (Velo-cardio-facial syndrome): schizophrenia / duplication: autism) and 22q13.3 (deficiency (Phelan-McDermid syndrome): schizophrenia / duplication: autism). Research on autism / schizophrenia relationships coupled with deficiencies / duplications of chromosome 15 (15q13.3), chromosome 16 (16p13.1) and chromosome 17 (17p12) are not yet clear. [5].
SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Copy Number Variants in Schizophrenia: Confirmation of Five Previous Findings and New Evidence for 3q29 Microdeletions and VIPR2 Duplications at http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/3/302
- Common Variants in the BCL9 Gene Conferring Risk of Schizophrenia at http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/68/3/232?rss=1
Is there still no reason to make a reference to the research? SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 98.14.224.84, 6 April 2011
Please note that Mark Vonnegut's diagnosis of schizophrenia is no longer accepted by most professionals, and he has noted it was improper. His psychiatric illness is bipolar disorder. He has discussed this in his 2010 book, JUST LIKE SOMEONE WITHOUT MENTAL ILLNESS, ONLY MORE SO.
I suggest adding the parenthesis at the end of the relevant sentence "(although he now believes a more appropriate diagnosis of his illness is bipolar disorder)."
98.14.224.84 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Smoking and schizophrenia
I do not think anyone would say that smoking causes schizophrenia just that the two are associated. This may be best in the section on prognosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The 'see also' in the Schizophrenia#Differential section goes to dual diagnosis, yet no substance abuse / dependence disorder is mentioned in the section. If the dual diagnosis article pointed to one more like the modern definition of a co-occurring disorder (a redlink i've been waiting for someone to do something about), it might be a little closer to what you want, but it still misses it's mark. Perhaps a see also to psychotic disorder?
- Speaking of this, there is no mention of co-morbid substance use disorders. It's prominent in the lead, doesn't that mean it gets a sentence somewhere in the article (does it, I'm not sure...)? There's a bit in the causes section under Schizophrenia#Environment, but nothing about co-morbidity. If it were me I'd stick it in prognosis. Prognosis of schizophrenia, its daughter article doesn't mention it, which is also bizare to me, but it's an unassessed article and this is an FA.
- Has having more info on homelessness been discussed on this talk page or is it more expanded in a daughter article? I haven't come across it.
- "The rate of schizophrenia varies up to threefold depending on how it is defined." - is this phrased as to avoid the word 'overdiagnosed'? If this is meant to be summary length or what have you, there's secondary sources that state the tendency to overdiagnose so I'd vote to change the wording. I'd do more digging into the ref that's provided but i don't have access to it and my internet connection isn't sturdy enough to dig on google scholar.
- There are sex differences that might merit a sentence or two more, namely the bimodal age-at-onset for women and the difference in experience of positive and negative symptoms. I haven't seen it discussed much in daughter articles.
- I feel like the word Haldol should be somewhere in Schizophrenia#Medication. Every other medication is, and it's not fair. ;-) Also, anyone mind if I put how long a typical depot shot of antipsychotics last? To my knowledge there's only Haldol and Risperidone, (I forget their super special marketing names/dosages/durations, but I can find it).
Cannabis is associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk of developing a psychotic disorder.[36] Frequent use has been found to double the risk of psychosis and schizophrenia.[35] Some research has however questioned the causality of this link.[24] Amphetamine, cocaine, and to a lesser extent alcohol, can result in psychosis that presents very similarly to schizophrenia.[3][37]
The even bigger link is Schizophrenia, Cannabis, and Conspiracy theories. If you dig deep into the Cannabis Legalization scene, you will find that an alarming majority of them indeed suffer from undiagnosed schizophrenia. Each and every one of them will also follow conspiracy theorists such as Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones as if they are the infallible word of God. I cannot believe this link is not mentioned anywhere in this article, almost every schizophrenic patient is into conspiracy theories and smoking cannabis. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Study: Modelling schizophrenia using human induced pluripotent stem cells
Nature (journal) published an interesting study about schizophrenia: Modelling schizophrenia using human induced pluripotent stem cells. Well this should revolutionize diagnosis before this breaks out. Maybe even Gene therapy in the long term... --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Change title picture for the topic
Change the title picture for the topic, the stitched blanket seems irrelevant.
I'm sure there are much better pictures to use to describe it. 76.98.250.164 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Refs in the lede
The lede section is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce new information. Thus, the lede section should not include refs. I suggest removing them and ensuring there is no information in the lede that does not exist in the main article. Basket of Puppies 03:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Poor article
Was told about this article by a friend who also studies the neurological aspects of schizophrenia. I have to agree with my friend's assessment this article in that it's really terrible! This article presents schizophrenia as a mental illness when it is in fact a neurological disorder of developmental and degenerative subsets thereof. I hope this can be updated and fixed ASAP. 140.247.141.137 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
He was right. You are all a bunch of bullies. I am brand new here and the first thing you tell me is I am acting inappropriately. Wikipedia reliability just suffered another loss. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Pdaly12
I am a student at Central College in Pella, IA in a Medical Anthropology class and I am doing a research paper on schizophrenia and part of our project is to make an edit to the Wikipedia page of our subject. I was wondering if you could give me access to make some small edits on the page. I would help add to the society and culture subsection and add some examples of different cases of each subtype of schizophrenia in the subtypes subsection. It would be really appreciated if you gave me access for today. Thanks, Pat --Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdaly12 (talk o contribs)
Eggs in one basket.
I have removed the material from this section because hardly any of it related to the purpose of this page, which is to discuss ways of improving the article, not to discuss the topic itself or tell personal stories. Anything that goes here should be specifically framed in terms of issues regarding the article text and should be supportable on the basis of reputable published literature. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
What can be discussed on article talk pages is very tightly constrained by the policy WP:TALK, in order to keep the discussions focussed and keep the page from turning into a massive wall of text. The different major subtypes of schizophrenia are touched on in the article at Schizophrenia#Subtypes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Pronunciations
It might be worth having non-American pronunciations featured on the page, viz. that with a "Z" sound as opposed to the "TS". 91.85.188.73 (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Age of onset
Realising the restricted and highly rigorous nature of changes to the page, this is just to draw editors attention to a study rather than specifically to disgree, im sure theres good reasons for whats said on this page. Gorwood et al (1995) found that average ages of onset were 27.8 in men, and 32.5 in woman, which seems to agree with what is said under the Epidemiology heading, but not in the introduction where it says "The onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood". The study is found here http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/2/208 Lewisly (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the age of the study, that is entirely irrelevant to it being authoritative. Notice that there are other, newer studies that are still referencing this one as an authoritative source. The journals that those studies were published in are all mainstream and authoritative in and of themselves. Age isn't the issue as much as authority and relevance. Basket of Puppies 13:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
treatment and onset
I happen to be a schizophrenic who has extensive knowledge, first hand, of the treatment and the onset of schizophrenia, which in this case is in a male subject. I saw no mention in the treatment section of the antipsychotic drug Abilify. However, there is an extensive wikipedia page on the drug itself. I would like to see a link to that page, which does relate itself in the treatment of schizophrenia. I have a real problem with the onset time frame for schizophrenia as it seems a bit skewed. Again, this is only one person speaking, however it is from personal first hand experience as my onset was at age seventeen (17 years old). As far as I know, it is very rare to develop schizophrenia after adulthood has set in. It happens typically in the developing brain when adolescents are becoming fully developed, not after the fact. Basichumanbeing (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)BasicHumanBeing (monday may 23 - 1:21 am pst)
Brain changes from schizophrenia is currently not verified
Ho 2011 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.199) found brain volume loss from antipsychotic treatment. Part of the loss can not be attributed to other things than antipsychotic treatment (and there is no evidence that not all the loss can be attributed to antipsychotic usage). Therefore the arguments in Os 2009 can no longer be used to tell that there are ongoing brain changes from schizophrenia itself. As far as I know none of the studies referenced by Os have controlled for antipsychotics treatment in such a way that you can say that the brain tissue loss was not caused by antipsychotic treatment.
So I suggest replacing Os 2009 in this area with something more specific and possibly explain why the conclusions may not be valid. And I also suggest adding a link to Ho 2011. Nopedia (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I can see the reason for using review articles, but it is misleading on controversial matters since the review articles usually points to old articles. And in a case like this there are strong reasons to believe that the old articles are not valid since they do not take into account the new facts from Ho 2011. In other words: Using Os 2009 here seems plain wrong now.
This is of course a main type of problem with old research, especially in controversial areas, something Ioannidis has written about, see John_P._A._Ioannidis. Nopedia (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the reason for using reviews. And I appreciate it. It might seem like I wanted the review article to go away from here, but that is just my clumsiness. Of course not. But it must be counteracted by the new research. BTW there is a review in the same issue of Arch Gen Psychiatry that puts Ho 2011 into context: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.187
Reading this (and some other reports) I can't see that it is very controversial to have the opinion that antipsychotic treatment gives brain loss. The controversy is rather about how to tell this and maybe about the amount of damage. When it comes to the amount of damage it looks clear that the monkey studies (Dorph-Petersen, Konopaske) gives a rather good estimation of it (if you compensate for that things happens faster in the monkeys shorter life). Many researchers still believe that antipsychotics may have a protecting effect on psychotic brains. There is however no direct evidence of this that I am aware of, only indications. All this is is reflected in the review I mentioned. And I think that should be integrated into this article. (With the addition that the research has nowhere shown that not all the brain loss is from antipsychotic treatment. Or a research article showing that not all is from antipsychotic treatment, but I am not aware of any such article actually.) Nopedia (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is the reply I tried to post yesterday, but I had some trouble:
Yes, it is an editorial, sorry (but with a kind of review, but not a review article). There are not many references to these articles yet and my experience is that there will not be many for a long time. It is my impression that it takes considerably longer time for articles that mentions possible adverse effects of antipsychotic treatment to be referenced. (Compare for example Tiihonen 2009, 101 references right now according to Google Scholar, and Konopaske 2008, 37. And part of Tiihonen is good and part is wrong in the conclusion. There is nothing wrong with Konopaske that I am aware of.)
There are yet only two references in English to Ho 2011, Goff (which seem to have misread the article) and Krishnadas (which I can't see much of yet, but it does not look important). However according to WP:MEDRS the reliability and consensus over the quality of the sources are the important thing.
The principal author behind Ho 2011 is Nancy Coover Andreasen on of the most respected researchers in this area, receiver of National Medal of Science year 2000. And the researched writing the editorial is David A Lewis, another well-respected neuroscientist (see http://www.tnp.pitt.edu/pages/employee/lewis/lewis_da.html).
So even if there is no review yet I think the sources are good enough to include. (And I do have some more material that are important here, but I do not have time to add it in a readable way at the moment.) Nopedia (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent article: couple of points
First, I'd just like to say that, in my opinion, this is a very well written and balanced article. Well done to all who have contributed to it and I hope that it succeeds in its FA review.
I'm not suggesting that anyone attempt any of the following until after the FA process but, personally, I would be interested in a treatment of the validity of schizophrenia as a diagnostic category. Is it a valid construct and to what degree and in what sense? Perhaps distinguishing between its utility as a clinical construct and the absence of a definitive understanding of its aetiology?
The other point relates to the history section. I've previously written part of the the history section of the dementia praecox article (largely written by Richard Knoll) dealing with the first use of the term dementia praecox. The reading I provide there differs considerably from that in this article in relation to the contribution of Benedict Morel and his purportedly early description of the condition. Note 10, note 11 and note 13 from that article are also relevant to this point. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Fiachra, I think you've hit the nail on the head when you mention the diagnosis's utility as a clinical construct rather than a reproducible manifestation of certain aetiology. Is this due to the limited treatment options? By this I mean that, to my knowledge, all the various forms of schizophrenia that are described all get treated by rather non-specfic D2 blockade with varying psychological therapies. There seems to be a lot of overlap between diagnoses depending upon what signs are most prominent at the time of examination (schizophrenia, schizophrenia with co-morbid up or down mood, morbid mood with psychotic features, schizoaffetive disorder etc.) and I've seen patients with frequently changing diagnoses on each admission. They all get similar treatment, however, so from a utility point of view, it almost doesn't matter what you call it. I'm coming at this from a basic level, as a med student revising for finals (so so finding the wiki talk page much more interesting than learning prevalence figures...), but generally it seems to me that a lot of psychiatry is 'say-what-you-see' resulting in somewhat arbitrary consensus definitions. I'm also immediately suspicious of the validity of any definition of a condition which employs set time frames such as for a month.
I find the entirety of psychiatry both depressing and exciting in equal measure owing to just how little we know regarding aetiology and therefore the treatments that we have developed. I hope and suspect that the next major advances in medicine are due from psychiatry, allowing us to more fully understand the interdependence of the body, brain and mind and indeed what the mind and conciousness really are. This is clearly exciting but the current outcomes for patients, particualrly people with schizophrenia, are deeply unsatisfactory. I suspect that you're coming at this from a much more mature view point than I so apologies if I'm not contributing. It would be interesting to know what qualified people and patients have to say about it. Jimbobolaffsson (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not read anything Poland [18] wrote, but there are some reviews of Mary Boyle's book listed on Talk:Mary Boyle (psychologist). Tijfo098 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Evolutionary explanations
An alternative explanation for the persistence of schizophrenia: http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=sapolsky. Probably worth mentioning this in the article. Adaba (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Subtypes of schizophrenia
Why does the subtype section not refer to hebephrenic schizophrenia or simple schizophrenia?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have now looked and seen it does refer to simple schizophrenia, but I have a feeling that this is in DSM as well as ICD.If you type "hebephrenic schizophrenia" into the box on the left, you get redirected to "disorganized schizophrenia", but this is not mentioned in the article,either. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Mary Boyle's work
One thing that could go here is Mary Boyle's arguments that schizophrenia does not exist, but I am aware that this is controversial. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Sub-section 'Differential'
In the sub-section Differential, under the proper section Diagnosis, it states, "Schizophrenia is complicated with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) considerably more often..." Is this the proper use of the word complicated? Is it in the sense to twist or become twisted together? I double checked in Wiktionary and there didn't seem to be any definition that would cause that statement to make sense. So either Wiktionary doesn't have the full meanings or somebody is using that word wrong. Could someone please let me know. Thanks. Lighthead þ 19:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Cause of schizophrenia
Today's papers have a study from Nature Genetics that needs to be in the article. It's called Exome sequencing supports a de novo mutational paradigm for schizophrenia by Bin Xu, Maria Karayiorgou and several others. It costs $18. Can anybody who is actively working on this article afford to buy it? There are high level summaries in WebMD, Ars Technica and elsewhere. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. I crossposted this to Talk:Causes of schizophrenia and hope that doesn't confuse anything.
Should we say more about cortical grey matter loss
I started a new section because I'm not addressing Nopedia's suggestion about Ho 2011
The article doesn't seem to mention grey matter loss, except for "Those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia have changes in both brain structure and chemistry." Should it have more detail; i.e., that the structural change is GM loss, and the regions of loss? (Don't know if it's too early to mention the "subtle but measurable" GM loss due to antipsychotics found in Ho 2011.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to add this in a while back. It was summarily rejected and removed by the WP:OWNers of the article despite having nearly a dozen secondary sources to back it up. Basket of Puppies 01:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The grey matter loss may be caused by medication as some research has suggested. http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/68/2/128
It may also be caused by a special sort of virus. http://www.pnas.org/content/98/8/4293.full
Or it may be a function of what happens to the person in life. Exclusion, isolation, unemployment etc. These may lead certain parts of the brain to be used less or more and cause atrophy.
It is also possible for the brain to function with damaged matter. The effect is called neuroplasticity. It was discovered in the mid-20 century back when stroke patients were written off rather than rehabilitated. A carer decided to rehabilitate his father rather than leave him to die and today modern medical practice is all about recovery. This guys father regained a high degree of function. (If i remember right he died half way up a mountain of a heart attack but I can't confirm that). When he was autopsied they found a large number of the connections between his brain and body had been cut the the brain and nervous system had adapted to the problem with training.
I don't have a reference for that story. I saw it on a BBC docuemntary,. I would suggest it might be worth checking with a doctor to see if the story is true and finding a reference for it. It is important when providing information about schizophrenia that the info is accurate but you also need to give patients and carers a bit of hope. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.156.237 (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. This last comment was by me. --Morethanhuman (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon