Talk:Antipsychotic

Overprescription

Overprescription of antipsychotics is evident in spite of side effects, often ignoring existing guidelines.

References

Conditions posed as symptoms

There is at least one deliberatly mangled sentence in the section "schizophrenia" Quote "There is mixed evidence to support a significant impact of antipsychotic use on negative symptoms (such as apathy, lack of emotional affect, and lack of interest in social interactions) or on the cognitive symptoms (memory impairments, reduced ability to plan and execute tasks).[20][21]" Problem:Conditions posed as symptoms (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_schizophrenia#Conditions_posed_as_symptoms ) If someone were so kind to rewrite it to properly reflect the statement it tries to make, rather than have it say the opposite or something inbetween.. DrBoller (talk) I think the keyword here is reasons for "non compliance" DrBoller (talk)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hkhan11 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Eresha8, Birmaniahern, Denisej 2.

— Assignment last updated by Denisej 2 (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Can I post this sentence

"Through the ability of most antipsychotics to antagonize 5ht_2a serotonin pathways enabling a sensitisation of postsynaptic serotonin receptors, mdma exposure can be more intense because it has more excitatory receptors to activate. The same effect can be observed with the d₂ antagonizing with normal amphetamine." <- Can I post this sentence? Is it grammatically and orthographically correct? Is the Logic in this sentence good enough for wikipedia?

Thank you for your answers😊 Materie34 (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on this before posting, Materie34. Two important questions for you:

It looks like you are trying to explain why the effects of MDMA and amphetamine are increased in people taking antipsychotics. Are increased effects supported by objective data? If so, then we need a citation.

Is the explanation for that observation supported by experimental data? There's nothing wrong with speculating - that's an essential step in scientific progress. However, if supported by experimental data then I would write it as a data-supported mechanism and we would need a citation. If not, then it has to be written very differently, with a clear caveat that it is speculation.

Verytas (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

hmm my thought was to combine the fact that postsynaptic receptors desensitize with antipsychotic exposure with the idea that amphetamines use these postsynaptic receptors through their effect. So if these thoughts have an enough valid base, I would post it, or I would create some more sentences to make it clear that this is just a mind game from me, thank you for your answer😊😊 Materie34 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Through the ability of most antipsychotics to antagonize 5ht_2a serotonin pathways enabling a sensitisation of postsynaptic serotonin receptors, mdma exposure can be more intense because it has more excitatory receptors to activate. The same effect can be observed with the d₂ antagonizing with normal amphetamine (with this just beeing hypothetical as there is the fact that antipsychotics sensitize receptors, with exact these postsynaptic receptors (5ht_2a,d₂) beeing flooded by the respective neurotransmitter (serotonine, dopamine)." <- now it has a caveat, that this is speculation+some sources Materie34 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I missed a ")" in the last sentence Materie34 (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

combine the fact

Wikipedia tries to apply as little logic or reasoning as possible to editors (see e.g. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, particularly synth) instead we try to slavishly follow the literature. Of course, things aren't quite so simple, but my normal practice as soon as I have an idea that might be relevant in wikipedia is try to find a paper discussing the idea and then trying to work out how well accepted this is. This can involve a lot of reading for us, but for the reader has the plus side of connecting them to the literature to review everything about the idea and allows learning for the editor. It can be quite fun to work through a topic guessing might be true and then confirming it in the literature (particularly if the idea is a little subversive and hidden in the mainstream literature).

Addressing the issue directly with some WP:FORUMy theoretical speculation (to shape our reading of course :D ). I'm not sure how good the evidence for desensitization is, my understanding is that it's a plausible theory and there's some theoretical evidence examining receptors themselves and in terms of break through psychosis, but as with everything related to AP people tend to point at underlying disorders. It's also worth noting that a bunch of APs (the second generation one's) are partial agonists so the effects could just as well be directly due to upregulation of neuratransmitters in some synapses (see things like aripiprazole and compulsive gambling). TALpedia 11:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Good text, very wise🙂 to be honest, I often stimulate myself with amphetamines and reading the hell out of pharmacologic wikipedia sites (I have read every pharmacologic site at least 4-5 times😁😁). Then, sometimes I feel like writing little passages by myself, so my intention is to write good locking little sentences which in the best case fits to the rest of the article 😄 so,yes, sure I am a hopeless Junky 😅, but I never had the intention to do vandalism nor have I any agenda or ideology behind my sentences, its more wanting to proof something to myself creating also nice looking sentences as an amateur just Like the "professional" editors, who have studied this. Also despite loving reading in english, I had to confess to myself through making me aware through other editors that my english expressing skills are sometimes poor, so when I feel the urge to write something I let it proofread at the talk Page😁 Materie34 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

but I didn't mean desensitization I meant sensitization in the first sentence as, so far as I understand is the logical reacton from the brain, I mean, through repetitive antipsychotic exposure the d² receptors are highly occupied and blocked constantly so the brain works against that producing more receptors, so sensitize in this regard. What I did was then combining this with the Idea that amphetamines which increase neurotransmitter release then have more postsynaptic receptors to activate/trigger. Materie34 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the view of TALpedia, above.

Materie34, your idea of combining two established ideas to create a new relationship has a very important place in science - that is exactly how we often create hypotheses, but we then have to test these hypotheses in the lab before we accept them as true. Until the idea has been tested experimentally, it remains only a hypothesis, and if we chose to write about it, we label it "speculation". It should not go into Wikipedia as if it is known information because testing ideas very often leads to surprises - our deductions turn out to be wrong because something we did not anticipate occurred.

I strongly suggest that you don't learn pharmacology from Wikipedia articles. They really are not written very well, they are often not written by genuine experts, and people who have authored textbooks, done research, and taught graduate classes in this field (such as myself) just can't keep them accurate, current, and well-written. It would be much better to read a proper textbook. Maybe start with a college-level textbook on physiology and focus on the neurophysiology section. Then read the general chapters on how receptors work in a graduate-level pharmacology text before going to chapters about receptors for specific drug classes.

Verytas (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Through the ability of most antipsychotics to antagonize 5ht_2a serotonin pathways enabling a sensitisation of postsynaptic serotonin receptors, mdma exposure can be more intense because it has more excitatory receptors to activate. The same effect can be observed with the d₂ antagonizing with normal amphetamine (with this just beeing hypothetical as there is the fact that antipsychotics sensitize receptors, with exact these postsynaptic receptors (5ht_2a, d₂) beeing flooded by the respective neurotransmitter (serotonine, dopamine) from amphetamine exposure)." <--- can I post this now, with a disclaimer that it is speculation/mindgame from me plus the sources? Materie34 (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think its "OK" enough, I will Post that, If someone are not ok with it, he can revert it I won't commit edit war 🙂🙂 Materie34 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The language in the edit does not make sense, and the first reference is merely a review (a paper that does not actually support your statement with data). For example, "sensitization" of receptors is not a valid term, and reference #4 that you cite never uses that term. You just do not "sensitize" a receptor. An organism may be sensitized, a pathway, even a cell may be sensitized, but in pharmacology that is not something that happens to a receptor.

Another example, "the exact these postsynaptic receptors" has no meaning in English. Yet another example: what does it mean to "flooded by the respective neurotransmitter (serotonine, dopamine) from amphetamine exposure"? A receptor can be flooded by a neurotransmitter, but what does that have to do with amphetamine exposure?

I can't seem to discourage you from posting edits that make no sense, but I also do not want to engage in an "edit war". Your English is about the same quality as my German or French, but I would not attempt to publish in those languages. So, I will merely ask you to revert your edit. To someone who has taught this field for decades - in English - at the graduate level, and who has published over a hundred scientific papers - in English - it makes no sense.

Verytas (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Missing Citation regarding Cortical Atrophy (Ho et al. 2011)

This article currently fails to mention longitudinal studies (specifically Ho et al. 2011 and Andreasen) demonstrating dose-dependent brain volume loss associated with long-term antipsychotic use. Excluding this data violates NPOV by minimizing documented iatrogenic risks. Relevant source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21300943/ Felps3 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Is something preventing you from adding it yourself? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, that study is WP:PRIMARY, so unusable according to WP:MEDRS.

But, otherwise, there are iatrogenic risks which are properly documented. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood regarding WP:PRIMARY. However, this data has been corroborated by secondary sources which meet MEDRS criteria.

Source to add: Fusar-Poli et al. (2013). 'Progressive brain volume loss during antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia: A meta-analysis of cumulative exposure.' Published in JAMA Psychiatry.

Why it qualifies: This is a Meta-Analysis (Secondary Source) published in a top-tier medical journal. It confirms the association between cumulative antipsychotic exposure and progressive brain volume loss. Excluding a JAMA Meta-Analysis violates NPOV. Felps3 (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

"Some of these neuroanatomical alterations may be associated with antipsychotic treatment." Not exactly a confident conclusion. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Standard scientific literature consistently uses conservative language ('may be associated') even when correlations are strong. The key finding of the Fusar-Poli meta-analysis was a dose-response relationship ('higher cumulative exposure was associated with greater decreases in gray matter volume').

In pharmacovigilance, a dose-dependent association is a critical safety signal. Excluding a meta-analysis from a top-tier journal (JAMA Psychiatry) simply because the authors used standard academic hedging violates NPOV. We do not need to assert causality as absolute fact; we simply need to accurately report what the study found: an association between cumulative dose and volume loss. Omitting this denies readers access to significant peer-reviewed safety data. Felps3 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)