Object Manipulation by Deformable Hand

K. Hirota,Yusuke Ujitoko,Kazuya Kiriyama,K. Tagawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55690-9_27

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The DSM-ICD diagnostic approach as an essential bridge between the patient and the "big data"

G B Mitropoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22365/jpsych.2018.293.249

Psychiatriki

Abstract:The use of diagnostic manuals in psychiatry is generally necessitated by the lack of tests that would corroborate psychiatric diagnosis. Criticism towards the today prevailing DSM-ICD diagnosis traditionally regards among others such problems as hyponarrativity, biologism, "death of phenomenology", and a questionably valid over-fragmentation of diagnosis. Lately, and especially after the appearance of the 5th edition of DSM (2013), criticism focuses at such issues as lack of validity, having failed to adopt a dimensional model, not adequately relying on genetics and neurobiology, and impeding, rather than facilitating, research into the etiology of mental disorders, the DSM becoming an "epistemic prison". The former problems seem to derive from the fact that the operationalist criteria are often uncritically adopted as the ultimate authority in diagnosis, instead of being merely guides, as intended originally and explicitely; the latter problems have been made more evident since the emergence of the American RDoC research initiative, which not only points to an alternative, more valid classification of mental disorders, but also aspires to signal a move of psychiatry tοwards precision medicine, having as its main dogma that mental disorders are disorders of brain circuits, which are expressed as complex syndromes. In this paper, the historical and epistemological context of the emergence of DSM is examined; its achievement in terms of diagnostic reliability as well as clinical utility is not negligible, especially taken into consideration the climate of virtual diagnostic arbitrariness which characterized the (American) psychiatry before 1980, with obvious consequences for the authority of the specialty. Then, the potential of the new era of genetics, neurobiology and analysis of the "big data" for generating a novel approach to psychiatric diagnosis and classification is put into consideration, while it remains unknown in what way the findings of RDoC could lead and be translated into a new classification system. Moreover, the particularity of the psychiatric object, the clinical significance of the categorical approach to diagnosis, as well as the need for a "irreducible psychological level of explanation" are discussed. In our view, today, the DSM-ICD diagnosis lies between two different and potentially opposing demands and tendencies: on the one hand, the demand for the individual, subjective and phenomenological particularity of the mentally ill to be taken into consideration (a demand that sometimes underestimates the need for clinical communication); on the other hand, the (largely future) vision for more and more analysis of biological data in the name of a yet to be clarified personalized therapy (the very notion of diagnosis becoming potentially redundant). Finally, considering the particularity of the psychiatric object, we conclude that matthe DSM-ICD approach, with its categorical diagnoses and its descriptive operational criteria, despite its inherent imperfections and inadequacies, continues to have a place in psychiatry as an essential bridge/interface between clinic and research data, as a common clinical language, and as an epistemic hub; and that prerequisites for diagnostic validity should be sought both in the cells of RDoC and in those theoretical approaches which examine human subjectivity as such, included phenomenology and psychoanalysis.
The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond

Nicole E. Rosen,Catherine Lord,Fred R. Volkmar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1

2021-02-24

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

Abstract:Abstract In this paper we review the impact of DSM-III and its successors on the field of autism—both in terms of clinical work and research. We summarize the events leading up to the inclusion of autism as a “new” official diagnostic category in DSM-III, the subsequent revisions of the DSM, and the impact of the official recognition of autism on research. We discuss the uses of categorical vs. dimensional approaches and the continuing tensions around broad vs. narrow views of autism. We also note some areas of current controversy and directions for the future.

psychology, developmental
From diversity to unity. The classification of mental disorders in 21st-century China

S Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-953x(05)70238-0

Abstract:Psychiatric disease constructs represent social constructs and genuine states of distress that have biopsychosocial sources. As such, they have social uses peculiar to the social groups in which they are created and legitimized. This is as true in the United States as in the rest of the world. The DSM schema, for instance, is so organized that every possible mental condition is listed as a disease to legitimate remuneration to practitioners from private medical insurance and government programs. This particular social use may be irrelevant to other societies where health care is financed differently. The CCMD-3 system represents an attempt at global unification and preservation of features that are salient for local application. Compared with its previous editions, noticeable changes have been made to render it in tune with international usage. This remarkable speed of adaptation speaks to the global flows of information technology and China's openness under rapid economic reform. It also demonstrates that the middle-aged cohort of more pragmatic Chinese psychiatric leaders who headed the CCMD-3 task force are now less vulnerable to the domination of the most senior generation of Chinese psychiatrists. Having been trained in the Russian system of psychiatry and gone through the various periods of national shame that traumatized China, they used to be very cautious about adopting foreign technology in general. This is why much less harmonization with the ICD-10 occurred with the CCMD-2-R, when the responsible task force was, for better or worse, dominated by these senior psychiatrists. Nonetheless, as Stengel and Sartorius remarked, an international classification must not aim to oust or replace regional classifications that serve valuable functions in the local contexts. No single classificatory system, Kirmayer submits, will suffice for all purposes--the correct diagnostic scheme is the one that accomplishes its explicit pragmatic aim by addressing the relevant level of description. The particular additions (e.g., travelling psychosis, culture-related mental disorders), deletions (e.g., depressive neurosis, pathologic gambling, avoidant and borderline personality disorders), retentions (e.g., unipolar mania, neurosis, hysteria, homosexuality), and epistemologic variations (e.g., somatoform disorder, neurasthenia) of diagnostic categories reflect exactly this simultaneous need to globalize and to take account of the changing reality of illness in contemporary China. Stengel advised that "no psychiatric classification can help being partly etiological and partly symptomatological, because these are the criteria by which psychiatrists distinguish mental disorders from each other." To an extent, the CCMD-3 is a critique of certain nosologic assumptions of Western psychiatry, such as the feasibility of a neo-Kraepelinian taxonomy grounded exclusively in symptomatology across all diagnostic categories, and the validity of syndromic architectures based on a firm adherence to the mind-body dichotomy. From this angle of vision, local systems of classification such as the CCMD-3 may offer an opportunity for needed reflections by North American psychiatrists who have simply taken the DSM-IV schema for granted. Sartorius reckoned that a classification is a way of seeing the world at a point in time. A deep study of the CCMD-3 is thus an avenue for achieving an understanding of the contemporary Chinese mind and the social realities in China. The remarkable diversity of China at present, namely, a Communist Party dominated state socialist political structure but the most rapidly growing capitalist economy in the world, guarantees that Chinese people's social and moral experience of illness will continue to change. The study of such culture-specific categories as travelling psychosis, neurasthenia, qigong-induced mental disorder, and dysfunctional homosexuality sheds light on the larger sociomoral processes and destabilizing changes in subjectivity that are occurring in this most populous country in the world.
The Need for Patient-Subjective Data in the DSM and the ICD

Elizabeth H. Flanagan,Larry Davidson,John S. Strauss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2010.73.4.297

2010-01-01

Psychiatry

Abstract:One improvement from the second to the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was to replace clinicians' subjective interpretations of mental disorders with objective descriptions of signs and symptoms that could be rated reliably across investigators. Along with clinicians' subjective impressions, however, the subjective experiences of the person with the mental disorder were minimized. This information could be valuable, as people's subjective experiences of disorders may indicate major underlying processes and be different from how characteristics of disorders appear objectively to outside observers. The authors suggest that empirically derived, patient-subjective characteristics of mental disorders be incorporated into future editions of the DSM and the ICD. Not only will these data offer important information that will help to enhance the accuracy of the diagnostic categories of the DSM and ICD, but such data also may serve to enhance clinicians' abilities to conceptualize accurately and empathically treat these disorders in their patients. Examples of patient-subjective criteria and their relationship to current DSM criteria are examined for borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia and suggestions for DSM-V and ICD-11 are offered. Diagnostic criteria that accurately reflect patients' subjective experience could also increase clinicians' ability to empathize with patients, one of the most important variables in treatment alliances.
Responses to the Publication of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5

Peter Kinderman,Kate Allsopp,Anne Cooke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167817698262

2017-03-15

Journal of Humanistic Psychology

Abstract:The idea and practice of diagnosis in psychiatry has always been controversial. Controversy came to a head in the period preceding and immediately after publication of the latest version of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition. There was widespread international discussion and debate not only in scholarly journals but in mainstream and social media, and to the formation of International DSM Response Committee and an International Summit on Psychiatric Diagnosis. This article documents that process and outlines the issues that provoked, and continue to provoke most controversy, from the (admittedly personal) perspective of those involved. It ends with suggestions of alternatives to diagnosis, which avoid some of these problems and outlines how these are being taken forward. The next 10 years are likely to see significant change.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Classification, selfhood, and culture in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual

Neil Krishan Aggarwal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12408

2023-09-23

Ethos

Abstract:For decades, social scientists have critiqued the construction of knowledge in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). However, they have not conducted research with an alternate classification from psychoanalytic and psychodynamic practitioners known as the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM), which is beginning to disseminate globally. This article analyzes cultural assumptions underpinning the classification rationale, concept of the self, and relationship between culture and mental disorders through close readings of DSM‐5‐TR (2022) and PDM‐2 (2017). It shows that DSM‐5‐TR's notion of scientific evidence is informed by an emphasis on biological research in psychiatry, which PDM‐2 views as mostly irrelevant to clinical work. Instead, PDM‐2 claims to speak authoritatively for the inner experiences of patients and clinicians in the therapeutic relationship. Both classifications share a concept of an ideal self that is individualistic, consistent across time, able to narrate rather than just feel emotions, and in control of cognition, emotion, and relationships. Whereas DSM‐5‐TR views the culture concept as a lens to interpret the patient–clinician encounter, PDM‐2 uses the culture concept inconsistently. I situate these findings within extant anthropological research and propose new directions to examine how both classifications are used in local contexts.

anthropology,psychology, multidisciplinary
Fifty Years of Psychiatric Classification and Epidemiology Interactions: What is a Mental Disorder?

Darrel A. Regier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2024.2395755

2024-09-11

Psychiatry

Abstract:Psychiatric clinical diagnostic formulation has evolved over time. The changes alter our understanding and our ability to provide a public health perspective on the epidemiology of mental disorders in large populations. Epidemiology is an important perspective and set of tools to assess prevalence, treated prevalence, untreated prevalence, individual risks for mental disorders, and possible links to the etiology of disorders by following the trails of environmental exposures, biological measures, interpersonal dynamics, and genetic risk factors. As communities develop health-care services to treat individuals with mental disorders, knowledge about their prevalence and treatment requirements is also important. Since severe mental disorders may require institutional care, the diagnostic criteria used may either protect an individual's liability for dangerous behavior (i.e. the insanity defense) or be used to control political and social dissidents. The criteria may also be used to determine evidence-based treatment options and eligibility for disability benefits. In this paper, using my vantage points as a physician scientist and public health officer, with leadership positions in national federal and professional mental health organizations, I address the developments in these areas over the past 50 years that have influenced institutional positions in the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association, and the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress. These perspectives may aid the next generation of investigators to advance the epidemiological and mental disorder classification scientific fields.

psychiatry
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)

Goran Arbanas

Abstract:Title: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) Author: American Psychiatric Association Editors of Croatian Edition: Vlado Jukic, Goran Arbanas ISBN: 978-953-191-787-2 Publisher: Naklada Slap, Jastrebarsko, Croatia Number of pages: 936Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders is a national classification, but since its third edition it became a worldwide used manual. [1] It has been published by the American Psychiatric Association and two years ago the fifth edition was released. [2] Croatian was among the first languages this book was translated to. [3] DSM-5 was translated by psychiatrists and psychologists, mainly from the University psychiatric hospital Vrapce and published by the Naklada Slap publisher.DSM has always been more publicly debated than the other main classification - the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). [4] The same happened with this fifth edition. Even before it was released, numerous individuals, organizations, groups and associations were publicly speaking about the classification, new diagnostic entities and changing criteria. [5]Although there is a tendency of authors of both DSM and ICD to synchronize these two classifications and to make them more harmonized with each new edition, there are several differences among them. While ICD covers all the diseases, disorders and reasons for making a contact with the health system, DSM covers "only" mental disorders. Other disorders (medical conditions, as they are named in DSM-5) are not included, except in situations when they lead to a development of a mental disorder. The other main difference is that DSM is more operational zed, and gives criteria for each of the disorders, listing how many criteria have to be met to make a diagnosis of a particular disorder, and what excluding criteria are.Due to the fact that it is used all around the globe and since it has become the most used psychiatric manual, it is sometimes said that DSM is a "psychiatric Bible". [6]Some critics of DSM say that it stigmatizes people and that in each edition it includes more diagnostic entities. It is true that in each edition of DSM there are more disorders listed, but this is due to the fact that medicine is a developing area and new insights are made every year, so some disorders are separated into different subtypes or subgroups and different new diagnoses, giving the impression more behaviour are being pathologized. The intention of the authors was to make more homogenous groups. But, the truth is that, compared with ICD, it is more difficult to get a diagnosis in DSM, than in ICD, with the same clinical presentation. [7] DSM requires functional impairment or distress to pathologize behaviour, while in ICD this criterion is not present in every case.During the process of developing DSM-5 there was an open public discussion. [2] For over a year any person was able to participate in the discussion about future criteria, inclusion or exclusion of diagnostic entities from DSM. More than 21000 letters was sent to the authors. This was the unprecedented way of developing a classification that ICD now tries to follow in preparation of its 11th edition.As a direct consequence of such an open and wide discussion, some new disorders were included (e.g. hoarding disorder), some were excluded even though they were included during the proposal period (e.g. hypersexual disorders), some were heavily debated (e.g. narcissistic personality disorder). [8-10]As previously mentioned, DSM and ICD systems try to harmonize more. There were more non-American authors included in DSM-5 than ever before and some of the experts in the field were in the task force of DSM-5 and ICD-11. [2, 11]What is new in DSM-5, compared to DSM-IV. The organization of the chapters has been changed, so now the flow of the disorders follow life cycle. The book starts with neurodevelopmental disorders, followed by schizophrenia, bipolar and depressive disorders, and closing with neurocognitive disorders. …

Psychology
PROTEIN PATTERN OF CEREBROSPINAL FLUID DURING THE COURSE OF ACUTE POLYRADICULONEUROPATHY.

S. Dencker,B. Swahn,B. Ursing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.0954-6820.1964.TB00599.X

2009-04-24

Acta Medica Scandinavica

Abstract:
Chinese Psychiatrists Views on Global Features of Ccmd-Iii, Icd-10 and Dsm-Iv

Yi-Zhuang Zou,Jie-Feng Cui,Biao Han,Ai-Li Ma,Man-Ying Li,Hong-Zhen Fan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2008.09.007

IF: 13.89

2008-01-01

Asian Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract:Objective: To survey psychiatrists' opinions about psychiatric classification in China, and provide information and suggestions for developing a new version of classificatory system.Method: The questionnaire about psychiatry classification written by Professor Graham Mellsop, New Zealand, was translated and modified into Chinese. An anonymous field survey of 380 psychiatry professionals was undertaken in Beijing.Results: A total of 181 questionnaires were eligible for analysis. The Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders version 3 (CCMD-III) is the most commonly used in China (63.8%), then ICD-10 (28.5%) and DSM-IV (7.7%). Half of the respondents (53.0%) agreed that the most important diagnostic classification is for communication among physicians, and then for communication between physician and patient (21.0%). Most professionals (90.0%) agree that classification should include less than 100 diagnostic options. Disagreement presents on cross-culture application of the ICD-10 and DSM-III: 75.1% professionals agreed that they are "useful and reliable regardless of patient ethnicity and culture'', while 46.8% found "sometimes difficult to apply across cultures'', and 35.8% thought classification is "over-embedded in European cultural concepts and values''.Conclusion: There is a strong trend of convergence and unification of China's diagnostic standards with international standards inevitable. A classification that is less complicated and confused, easy-tocommunicate and understand and cross-cultural/nation applicable is expected by most Chinese psychiatrists. Such classification should also be reflective of the advances in understanding of aetiology of disorders and helpful in clinical management. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.
The critical reception of the DSM-5: Towards a typology of audiences

Melissa Roy,Marie-Pier Rivest,Dahlia Namian,Nicolas Moreau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519868969

Abstract:Since its initial publication, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has been the object of criticism which has led to regular revisions by the American Psychiatric Association. This article analyses the debates that surrounded the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Building on the concepts of public arenas and reception theory, it explores the meaning encoded in the manual by audiences. Our results, which draw from a thematic analysis of traditional and digital media sources, identify eight audiences that react to the American Psychiatric Association's narrative of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.): conformist, reformist, humanist, culturalist, naturalist, conflictual, constructivist and utilitarian. While some of their claims present argumentative polarities, others overlap, thus challenging the idea, often presented in academic publications, of a fixed debate. In order to further discuss on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, we draw attention to claims that 'travel' across different communities of audiences.
How Did Everyone Get Diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder?

Allan V. Horwitz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2015.0005

2015-01-01

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

Abstract:Psychiatric diagnoses often reflect a matrix of sociological factors associated with professional prestige, economic forces, and cultural fashions. Diagnostic systems conceptualize the same underlying psychosocial problems in very different ways during various time periods. Since the publication of the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III) in 1980, psychological distress resulting from social circumstances that previously was viewed as a general problem of nerves, neuroses, and anxiety was transformed into the specific diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Several factors, including the contrasting ways in which DSM-III defined anxiety and depression, the necessity of using explicit diagnoses to obtain professional legitimacy and reimbursement for services, and the marketing practices of the pharmaceutical industry, account for why depression replaced anxiety as the diagnosis most suitable for treated mental health conditions. Beneath the changing veneer of psychiatric labels, however, lies the same mélange of psychic ills that resist the precise labels current diagnostic fashions strive to impose upon them.

medicine, research & experimental,history & philosophy of science
Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses

Stefan Leucht,Jim van Os,Markus Jäger,John M. Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2652

2024-09-11

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:Importance Psychiatry mainly deals with conditions that are mediated by brain function but are not directly attributable to specific brain abnormalities. Given the lack of concrete biological markers, such as laboratory tests or imaging results, the development of diagnostic systems is difficult. Observations This narrative review evaluated 9 diagnostic approaches. The validity of the DSM and the International Classification of Disorders ( ICD ) is limited. The Research Domain Criteria is a research framework, not a diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the quantitatively derived, dimensional Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is questionable. The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual Version 2 follows psychoanalytic theory and focuses on personality. Unlike the personality assessments in ICD-11 or DSM-5 ’s alternative model, based on pathological extremes of the big 5 traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism), it lacks foundation in empirical evidence. Network analytic approaches are intriguing, but their complexity makes them difficult to implement. Staging would be easier if individually predictive biological markers were available. The problem with all these new approaches is that they abstract patient experiences into higher-order constructs, potentially obscuring individual symptoms so much that they no longer reflect patients’ actual problems. Conclusions and Relevance ICD and DSM diagnoses can be questioned, but the reality of psychopathological symptoms, such as hallucinations, depression, anxiety, compulsions, and the suffering stemming from them, cannot. Therefore, it may be advisable to primarily describe patients according to the psychopathological symptoms they present, and any resulting personal syndromes, embedded in a framework of contextual clinical characterization including personality assessment and staging. The DSM and ICD are necessary for reimbursement, but they should be simplified and merged. A primarily psychopathological symptoms–based, clinical characterization approach would be multidimensional and clinically useful, because it would lead to problem-oriented treatment and support transdiagnostic research. It should be based on a universally used instrument to assess psychopathology and structured clinical characterization.

psychiatry
Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in the 21st century: paradigm shifts versus incremental integration

Dan J. Stein,Steven J. Shoptaw,Daniel V. Vigo,Crick Lund,Pim Cuijpers,Jason Bantjes,Norman Sartorius,Mario Maj

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20998

2022-09-21

World Psychiatry

Abstract:Psychiatry has always been characterized by a range of different models of and approaches to mental disorder, which have sometimes brought progress in clinical practice, but have often also been accompanied by critique from within and without the field. Psychiatric nosology has been a particular focus of debate in recent decades; successive editions of the DSM and ICD have strongly influenced both psychiatric practice and research, but have also led to assertions that psychiatry is in crisis, and to advocacy for entirely new paradigms for diagnosis and assessment. When thinking about etiology, many researchers currently refer to a biopsychosocial model, but this approach has received significant critique, being considered by some observers overly eclectic and vague. Despite the development of a range of evidence‐based pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies, current evidence points to both a treatment gap and a research‐practice gap in mental health. In this paper, after considering current clinical practice, we discuss some proposed novel perspectives that have recently achieved particular prominence and may significantly impact psychiatric practice and research in the future: clinical neuroscience and personalized pharmacotherapy; novel statistical approaches to psychiatric nosology, assessment and research; deinstitutionalization and community mental health care; the scale‐up of evidence‐based psychotherapy; digital phenotyping and digital therapies; and global mental health and task‐sharing approaches. We consider the extent to which proposed transitions from current practices to novel approaches reflect hype or hope. Our review indicates that each of the novel perspectives contributes important insights that allow hope for the future, but also that each provides only a partial view, and that any promise of a paradigm shift for the field is not well grounded. We conclude that there have been crucial advances in psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in recent decades; that, despite this important progress, there is considerable need for further improvements in assessment and intervention; and that such improvements will likely not be achieved by any specific paradigm shifts in psychiatric practice and research, but rather by incremental progress and iterative integration.

psychiatry
Campbell's 1953 Book on "Manic-Depressive Disease": A Counter-Factual History of the DSM Symptomatic "A Criteria" for Major Depression

Kenneth S Kendler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000001778

2024-07-01

Abstract:The DSM-III symptomatic criteria for major depression (MD) were derived from those proposed by Feighner and colleagues in 1972, which closely resembled those published by Cassidy in 1957. I here present a counter-factual history in which Feighner carefully read a key reference in Cassidy, a large 1953 follow-up study by Campbell of depressed patients with detailed tables of depressive signs and symptoms. In this alternative timeline, the Feighner criteria for MD were modified by Campbell's results, which then changed DSM-III and subsequent MD criteria sets. The historical pathway to the current DSM MD criteria was contingent on a range of historical events and could easily have been different. This story is not meant to criticize DSM MD criteria that perform well. Rather, it suggests that these criteria represent a useful but fallible set of symptoms/signs that index but do not constitute MD and therefore are not to be reified.
The (re-)instrumentalization of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in psychological publications: a citation context analysis

Kai Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.11101

2020-10-22

Abstract:Research instruments play significant roles in the construction of scientific knowledge, even though we have only acquired very limited knowledge about their lifecycles from quantitative studies. This paper aims to address this gap by quantitatively examining the citation contexts of an exemplary research instrument, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in full-text psychological publications. We investigated the relationship between the citation contexts of the DSM and its status as a valid instrument being used and described by psychological researchers. We specifically focused on how this relationship has changed over the DSM's citation histories, especially through the temporal framework of its versions. We found that a new version of the DSM is increasingly regarded as a valid instrument after its publication; this is reflected in various key citation contexts, such as the use of hedges, attention markers, and the verb profile in sentences where the DSM is cited. We call this process the re-instrumentalization of the DSM in the space of scientific publications. Our findings bridge an important gap between quantitative and qualitative science studies and shed light on an aspect of the social process of scientific instrument development that is not addressed by the current qualitative literature.

Digital Libraries
Rethinking the Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: Data-Driven Psychological Dimensions, Not Categories, as a Framework for Mental-Health Research, Treatment, and Training

Christopher C. Conway,Robert F. Krueger,David C. Cicero,Colin G. DeYoung,Nicholas R. Eaton,Miriam K. Forbes,Michael N. Hallquist,Roman Kotov,Robert D. Latzman,Camilo J. Ruggero,Leonard J. Simms,Irwin D. Waldman,Monika A. Waszczuk,David Watson,Thomas A. Widiger,Aidan G. C. Wright,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721421990353

IF: 7.867

2021-04-01

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Abstract:Generations of psychologists have been taught that mental disorder can be carved into discrete categories, each qualitatively different from the others and from normality. This model is now outdated. A preponderance of evidence indicates that (a) individual differences in mental health (health vs. illness) are a matter of degree, not kind, and (b) broad mental-health conditions (e.g., internalizing) account for the tendency of narrower ones (e.g., depression, social anxiety, panic) to co-occur. With these observations in mind, we discuss an alternative diagnostic system, called the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), that describes the broad and specific components of mental disorder. It deconstructs traditional diagnostic categories, such as those listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and recasts them in terms of profiles of dimensions. Recent findings support the utility of this approach for mental-health research and intervention efforts. HiTOP has the potential to put mental-health research, training, and treatment on a much sounder scientific footing.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Queer diagnoses revisited: The past and future of homosexuality and gender diagnoses in DSM and ICD

Jack Drescher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1053847

2015-08-04

International Review of Psychiatry

Abstract:The American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently completed a several year process of revising the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). During that time, there were objections raised to retaining DSM's gender identity disorder diagnoses and calls to remove them, just as homosexuality had been removed from DSM-II in 1973. At the conclusion of the DSM-5 revision process, the gender diagnoses were retained, albeit in altered form and bearing the new name of 'gender dysphoria'. The author of this paper was a member of the DSM-5 Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders and presently serves on the WHO Working Group on Sexual Disorders and Sexual Health. Both groups faced similar tasks: reconciling patients' needs for access to care with the stigma of being given a psychiatric diagnosis. The differing nature of the two diagnostic manuals led to two different outcomes. As background, this paper updates the history of homosexuality and the gender diagnoses in the DSM and in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) as well as what is expected to happen to the homosexuality and gender diagnoses following the current ICD-11 revision process.

psychiatry
Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses: A Narrative Review

Stefan Leucht,Jim van Os,Markus Jäger,John M Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2652

2024-11-01

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:Importance: Psychiatry mainly deals with conditions that are mediated by brain function but are not directly attributable to specific brain abnormalities. Given the lack of concrete biological markers, such as laboratory tests or imaging results, the development of diagnostic systems is difficult. Observations: This narrative review evaluated 9 diagnostic approaches. The validity of the DSM and the International Classification of Disorders (ICD) is limited. The Research Domain Criteria is a research framework, not a diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the quantitatively derived, dimensional Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is questionable. The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual Version 2 follows psychoanalytic theory and focuses on personality. Unlike the personality assessments in ICD-11 or DSM-5's alternative model, based on pathological extremes of the big 5 traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism), it lacks foundation in empirical evidence. Network analytic approaches are intriguing, but their complexity makes them difficult to implement. Staging would be easier if individually predictive biological markers were available. The problem with all these new approaches is that they abstract patient experiences into higher-order constructs, potentially obscuring individual symptoms so much that they no longer reflect patients' actual problems. Conclusions and relevance: ICD and DSM diagnoses can be questioned, but the reality of psychopathological symptoms, such as hallucinations, depression, anxiety, compulsions, and the suffering stemming from them, cannot. Therefore, it may be advisable to primarily describe patients according to the psychopathological symptoms they present, and any resulting personal syndromes, embedded in a framework of contextual clinical characterization including personality assessment and staging. The DSM and ICD are necessary for reimbursement, but they should be simplified and merged. A primarily psychopathological symptoms-based, clinical characterization approach would be multidimensional and clinically useful, because it would lead to problem-oriented treatment and support transdiagnostic research. It should be based on a universally used instrument to assess psychopathology and structured clinical characterization.
[Which way ahead for psychiatry? Identity, competence and cooperation--challenges of the 21st century]

Péter Osváth

Abstract:In the past decades some disadvantageous changes have been occurred in almost each field of medicine, especially neurology and psychiatry. Medical students and young doctors are less and less able to utilize their neurological knowledge in the everyday clinical practice and the number of doctors specialized in neurosciences is decreasing. Recent problems of psychiatry originate from special development, controversial process of detachment, particular societal and cultural roots, differences from medical model, and problems of identity, self-determination and competence, which may cause many difficulties in clinical practice. The author - near the review of the theoretical background - mentions several practical topics as well, for example: the difficulties of diagnosing, and classification of mental disorders, the diagnostic and treating problems being in the background of psychopathological symptoms. In the article it is emphasized that the present situation results in several serious problems for the psychiatrists like emotional overburden, somatic and mental disorders and burnout, moreover psychiatry became one of the least popular medical professions, which causes huge difficulties in the aftergrowth. Furthermore the author emphasises, that this profession has to actualize the humanistic view in clinical practice based on the holistic bio-psycho-socio-spiritual approach. The (neuro)scientific and consultative psychiatric viewpoints, the constructive intra- and interdisciplinary communication, the more effective value-based advocacy and the modern, evidence-based, interactive and personal education together have a key role in the solution of the above mentioned problems.

Object Manipulation by Deformable Hand

The DSM-ICD diagnostic approach as an essential bridge between the patient and the "big data"

The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond

From diversity to unity. The classification of mental disorders in 21st-century China

The Need for Patient-Subjective Data in the DSM and the ICD

Responses to the Publication of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5

Classification, selfhood, and culture in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual

Fifty Years of Psychiatric Classification and Epidemiology Interactions: What is a Mental Disorder?

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)

PROTEIN PATTERN OF CEREBROSPINAL FLUID DURING THE COURSE OF ACUTE POLYRADICULONEUROPATHY.

Chinese Psychiatrists Views on Global Features of Ccmd-Iii, Icd-10 and Dsm-Iv

The critical reception of the DSM-5: Towards a typology of audiences

How Did Everyone Get Diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder?

Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses

Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in the 21st century: paradigm shifts versus incremental integration

Campbell's 1953 Book on "Manic-Depressive Disease": A Counter-Factual History of the DSM Symptomatic "A Criteria" for Major Depression

The (re-)instrumentalization of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in psychological publications: a citation context analysis

Rethinking the Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: Data-Driven Psychological Dimensions, Not Categories, as a Framework for Mental-Health Research, Treatment, and Training

Queer diagnoses revisited: The past and future of homosexuality and gender diagnoses in DSM and ICD

Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses: A Narrative Review

[Which way ahead for psychiatry? Identity, competence and cooperation--challenges of the 21st century]