Talk:Schizophrenia#I like the image but....

Schizofrenia is defacto an autistic disorder sindrome caused either apriori or posteriori by what in ancient days was called 'a hole in the head', the type of hole being a potencial differencial sphere (EM) through which either/or no floating neurotransmitor can move OR neuron could (calous area and empty space are both 'holes' with respect to healthy cerebral space).

Are there other forms/permutations? Yes, a circular neuron whose head and tail are connected causing a miniature quantum effect (EM) that functions as an antenna (Magnetic induction theory).

R.Bok 186.24.133.70 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand any of that, and I'm probably speaking into the void, but if you wish to add important information about schizophrenia to the article, please learn how to edit, use a spell checker, and back up anything you add with citations to reliable sources. Otherwise, please understand that Wikipedia talk pages are not a discussion forum. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 18:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1744012867}}

Louis Wain having schizophrenia is speculation done after his death, as his official diagnosis —while he was alive— was only of insanity. [https://artincontext.org/louis-wain/#Louis_Wains_Art_Style_and_Mental_Condition (1)]

The paintings presented in the "timeline" also lack dates so the order is, therefore, inaccurate. [https://mindhacks.com/2007/09/26/the-false-progression-of-louis-wain/ (2)]

"Attributed by some" is not a real source and is rather vague, convenient wording. The inclusion of Louis Wain's drawings does not contribute anything to the article, and can even perpetuate very harmful myths. 186.11.20.206 (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:Support You are quite right. I have checked the article on Louis Wain, and there is no evidence that these six cats reflect a timeline of schizophrenia. This is a featured article, and therefore, instead of encouraging you to remove the image yourself, I have created a Request for comments. Lova Falk (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Support the removal of Wain's paintings from this article, given that this diagnosis is speculative and appears to be held in some doubt. Wain's article puts this series of paintings in better context, captioning the same image used here as "Cats in various styles from Wain's later years in unknown chronological order" and noting in the body that {{tq|In 1939, a psychiatrist, Walter Maclay, found some paintings by Wain in a shop in Campden Hill and put them in a sequence that, he claimed, showed evidence of a deterioration in the artist's mental state due to schizophrenia, even though the paintings were not dated. Maclay's theory has been challenged as Wain was still producing paintings in his old style, as well as more abstract "kaleidoscopic" designs, while at Napsbury.}} Currently, the prescence of Wain's paintings in this article takes them completely out of context, and when taken in context it is clear that they don't belong in this article as an illustration of the work of artists with schizophrenia, or as an illustration of how people with schizophrenia experience the world.

:Thanks for bringing this up, and to @Lova Falk for starting the RfC. I was familiar with the common narrative that those paintings were linked to Wain's schizophrenia, never realising that this is posthumous speculation. Thanks for educating me :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Ethmostigmus, also for me it was 186.11.20.206 who educated me about this. 20px Lova Falk (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Support removal of images of Wain's work given lack of a reliable source for a positive diagnosis. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::forgot to say: invited randomly by a bot Jojalozzo (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Bethlem Museum of the Mind: "Louis Wain's Kaleidoscope Cats. It's often thought that these paintings represent the decline in Wain's mental health, but there's no evidence the paintings are related to each other. All are undated, but they're often displayed in an order that tries to illustrate this theory." © [https://x.com/bethlemmuseum/status/1821484748755361981 x.com/bethlemmuseum]. PsyWoman (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} Lova Falk (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Schizophrenia|answered=yes}}

Under Diagnosis -> Neuroimaging techniques, please add the following:

"Magnetic resonance imaging studies have shown that structural brain abnormalities are present in patients with schizophrenia, including both cortical and subcortical volume reductions. Cortical thinning in frontal, temporal, occipital, and

smaller parietal regions is the most important factor contributing to volume reduction in schizophrenia, but more circumscribed regional cortical surface area reductions are also present. Subcortically, enlarged ventricles and reduced hippocampal and (left) thalamic volumes have been observed."

sources:

Cortical thickness and subcortical volumes in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

LM Rimol, CB Hartberg, R Nesvåg, C Fennema-Notestine, DJ Hagler Jr, ... Biological psychiatry 68 (1), 41-50 540 2010

Cortical volume, surface area, and thickness in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

LM Rimol, R Nesvåg, DJ Hagler Jr, Ø Bergmann, C Fennema-Notestine, ... Biological psychiatry 71 (6), 552-560 2012 Sally555555 (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Sally555555! Both these sources are WP:Primary, and even thought they mention two articles, both have had the same scientist as the first name. For any new information to be added to this medical and featured page, you need at least secondary sources. See also: WP:BMI/WP:MEDRS. Please feel free to come back with those sources, and either reopen this request by changing the "answered=yes" above back to "answered is no", or open a new edit request. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::That's ridiculous. Primary sources are exactly what you should rely on. This is solid science unlike some of the other stuff in this article. Sally555555 (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Please see: WP:BMI/WP:MEDRS. PS I understand that it is frustrating! Lova Falk (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Sally555555}} we use secondary sources (like academic reviews) because individual studies may be flawed. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many sources that suggest that symptoms do resolve for many people, this DSM line is highly inaccurate and I worry dangerous. When someone has symptoms of

schizophrenia or is diagnosed with it and goes on Wikipedia and reads this, they may be left with little hope of recovery when there may absolutely be hope of remission. The risk of suicide in schizophrenia patients is high and it could be argued that this is due to a lack of hope of remission from information such as on this page.

The National Library of Medicine published an article on studies that looked into rates of remission and found that, 'These studies have demonstrated that the RSWG remission criteria appear achievable and sustainable for a significant proportion of patients, and are related to a better overall symptomatic status and functional outcome and, to a less clear extent, to a better quality of life and cognitive performance'. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3181974/#:~:text=Many%20patients%20(45%25%20to%2070,(56%25%20vs%2044%25). There are many more examples of people diagnosed with schizophrenia going into full remission. Can we please change this harmful and outdated information that could have devastating consequences? 81.174.145.141 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Remission does not mean that all the symptoms of Schizophrenia go away, it usually means a reduction of symptoms but not the complete elimination. The paper you cited points this out as well. In this study they also pointed out that a lot of the existing literature on Schizophrenia remission did not use the remission criteria properly. The RSWG remission criteria does not require zero symptoms but just mild symptoms. I don't think it's accurate to say that the symptoms of Schizophrenia never go away as I'm sure a rare few do have this experience but literature shows that symptoms do not fully resolve for the vast majority of those with Schizophrenia. False hope is also dangerous to people. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::The line in question is 'Symptoms develop gradually and typically begin during young adulthood and are never resolved' (i.e 'never go away' which as you say yourself is inaccurate) when, actually, remission (definition: the reduction or dissapearance of symptoms) is known to be very frequent for a large number of patients if you read any literature or work in the field yourself. This very negative prognosis is old fashionedand extremely outdated: (see prognosis section) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546579/

::I would really like you to explain how 'false hope can be dangerous' when it is known that hope of a positive outcome has beneficial effects for the majority or ailmemts, please google 'the placebo effect'. Googling 'schizophrenia' and coming accross this line is what is dangerous for people sufferering from psychosis for the first time, many of which go on to never experience a second case of psychosis. Please see the below citation that 1-2/3 of patients show 'substantial improvement' and this is not reflected on this wiki page. Please also see rate of suicide at 5%.

::https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5605254/ 81.174.145.141 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would happily support changing the current sentence to reflect that remission is possible as I do agree that "never resolved" is a inaccurate. I will look later today for a more up to date study to guide us in rewording this claim.

:::The most recent study I could find showed a "one-year remission rate of 29 %" [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996424002950#s0090] which I wouldn't consider "very frequent for a large number of patients" but this is kind of a subjective measure regardless.

:::The study you linked is an editorial and not in line with WP:MEDRS so I'm not going to entertain it right now. I do agree that our current wording isn't helpful but neither is giving people inaccurate statistics. If you're interesting in learning more about the difference between hope and false hope I would recommend this study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7664828/ which says "False hope encompasses a myriad of harms, which cannot be mitigated by the positives of hope." IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is probably the most comprehensive source I have found which says: "We found that 24.2 % of patients with schizophrenia had ‘recovered’; 35.5 % had a ‘good or better’ outcome (which also includes ‘recovered’)" [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996422004248#s0085].

:::This source which I also found quite in depth says: "The most common trajectory for participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders is one of no remission and no recovery." [https://osf.io/yh74r/download/?format=pdf].

:::I think a more accurate statement would be "Symptoms develop gradually and typically begin during young adulthood and only resolve in 25-35% of individuals." 04:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC) IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your suggestion for the updated language. I agree with this amendment. I would, however, argue that the 'only' is not necessary, as one quarter going into full remission is a sizable chunk. However, I also agree that this is subjective. I value the influence of semantics when adressing recovery in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders as 'hope' plays a vital part in recovery: "An individual’s sense of hope is critical to the personal, social, and clinical recovery processes for severe mental illness as it is often necessary for positive change to occur related to one’s illness."https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10339619/#:~:text=Hope%20may%20be%20an%20important,3%2C%2016%2C%2017%5D."

::::My argument would be, if this wording can have a positive affect on people suffering from a much maligned illness, wouldn't we want to present the information in the best possible light? However, the change you have suggested is significantly better than the previous (incorrect) wording and I would be happy with that change.

::::How do we go about this? JenGreen85 (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::In response to the false hope argument, I can see the negative ramifications in the treatment of terminally ill patients, for example, but I can't see any reference to psychological disorders in the article and don't see how this applies to schizophrenia in the same way.

:::::I fully agree that realistic expectations are helpful for people with severve mental health disorders and their friends amd family, like having a realistic understanding of time frame in recovery, but I am convinced that hope of a future ease of symptoms is integral to recovery. JenGreen85 (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::For now I changed it to {{tq|Symptoms develop gradually and typically begin during young adulthood and rarely resolve.}} to align with the wording used by the sources I was able to find. The lead does go into further details on the recovery rates so I'll leave that for now and return to this once I read a bit more. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm fine to remove the "only" part and kind of let readers decide for themselves if that is a significant chunk of patients or not. I do appreciate that you read the article I linked, and while the article focused on medical conditions, the brain is apart of the body and I would say it applies to psychological disorders as well. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Schizophrenia|answered=yes}}

Change: The fixed-dose combination medication xanomeline/trospium chloride (Cobenfy) was approved for medical use in the United States in September 2024.[201][202] It is the first cholinergic agonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat schizophrenia.[201]

To: A recent systematic review and meta-analysis highlights widespread alterations in the central cholinergic system in schizophrenia and highlight the clinical relevance of emerging treatments targeting this system, including xanomeline/trospium.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-025-03023-y.epdf?sharing_token=dzv0Q7bU1vuDXoA3mCwtKNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MV9JbMbzeEut977r0w7kytlHIloNbPFi5bW3UMtbwxc3GdJJOOzQvlUgQco6jIpCG3IYm9XWQ44ujSZJ95qiLhOzduXz4XKkI6uCfze0AgaXw17K-yZVWCj8FDAChvWAI%3D Saint-Georges et al., 2025 The fixed-dose combination medication xanomeline/trospium chloride (Cobenfy) was approved for medical use in the United States in September 2024.[201][202] It is the first cholinergic agonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat schizophrenia.[201] 142.120.168.135 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} although with a rephrased (and much simpler) sentence. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)