MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2886123861 · doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.07.008

Is it time to revise the diagnostic criteria for apathy in brain disorders? The 2018 international consensus group

2018· article· en· W2886123861 sur OpenAlexaff
Philippe Robert, Krista L. Lanctôt, Luis Agüera-Ortíz, Pauline Aalten, François Brémond, Michaela Defrancesco, Cécile Hanon, Renaud David, Blaise Dubois, Kathy Dujardin, Masud Husain, Alexandra König, Richard Lévy, Valentina Mantua, Didier Meulien, David S. Miller, Hans J. Moebius, J. Rasmussen, Guillaume Robert, Myuri Ruthirakuhan, Florindo Stella, Jerome A. Yesavage, Radia Zeghari, Valéria Manera

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Psychiatry · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Établissements canadiensSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesAgenzia Italiana del Farmaco, Ministero della SaluteLily FoundationUniversité Côte d’AzurAgence Nationale de la Recherche
Mots-clésApathyPsychologyDelphi methodAffect (linguistics)Clinical psychologyDelphiPsychiatryCognitionComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Apathy is a very common behavioural and psychological symptom across brain disorders. In the last decade, there have been considerable advances in research on apathy and motivation. It is thus important to revise the apathy diagnostic criteria published in 2009. The main objectives were to: a) revise the definition of apathy; b) update the list of apathy dimensions; c) operationalise the diagnostic criteria; and d) suggest appropriate assessment tools including new technologies. Methods: The expert panel (N = 23) included researchers and health care professionals working on brain disorders and apathy, a representative of a regulatory body, and a representative of the pharmaceutical industry. The revised diagnostic criteria for apathy were developed in a two-step process. First, following the standard Delphi methodology, the experts were asked to answer questions via web-survey in two rounds. Second, all the collected information was discussed on the occasion of the 26th European Congress of Psychiatry held in Nice (France). Results: Apathy was defined as a quantitative reduction of goal-directed activity in comparison to the patient’s previous level of functioning (criterion A). Symptoms must persist for at least four weeks, and affect at least two of the three apathy dimensions (behaviour/cognition; emotion; social interaction; criterion B). Apathy should cause identifiable functional impairments (criterion C), and should not be fully explained by other factors, such as effects of a substance or major changes in the patient’s environment (Criterion D). Table 1 Apathy diagnostic criteria 2018. CRITERION A:A quantitative reduction of goal-directed activity either in behavioral, cognitive, emotional or social dimensions in comparison to the patient’s previous level of functioning in these areas. These changes may be reported by the patient himself/herself or by observation of others. CRITERION B:The presence of at least 2 of the 3 following dimensions for a period of at least four weeks and present most of the timeB1. BEHAVIOUR & COGNITIONLoss of, or diminished, goal-directed behaviour or cognitive activity as evidenced by at least one of the following:General level of activity:the patient has a reduced level of activity either at home or work, makes less effort to initiate or accomplish tasks spontaneously, or needs to be prompted to perform them.Persistence of activity:He/she is less persistent in maintaining an activity or conversation, finding solutions to problems or thinking of alternative ways to accomplish them if they become difficult.Making choices:He/she has less interest or takes longer to make choices when different alternatives exist (e.g., selecting TV programs, preparing meals, choosing from a menu, etc.)Interest in external issue:He/she has less interest in or reacts less to news, either good or bad, or has less interest in doing new thingsPersonal wellbeing:He/she is less interested in his/her own health and wellbeing or personal image (general appearance, grooming, clothes, etc.).B2. EMOTIONLoss of, or diminished, emotion as evidenced by at least one of the following:Spontaneous emotions:the patient shows less spontaneous (self-generated) emotions regarding their own affairs, or appears less interested in events that should matter to him/her or to people that he/she knows well.Emotional reactions to environment:He/she expresses less emotional reaction in response to positive or negative events in his/her environment that affect him/her or people he/she knows well (e.g., when things go well or bad, responding to jokes, or events on a TV program or a movie, or when disturbed or prompted to do things he/she would prefer not to do).Impact on others:He/she is less concerned about the impact of his/her actions or feelings on the people around him/her.Empathy:He/she shows less empathy to the emotions or feelings of others (e.g., becoming happy or sad when someone is happy or sad, or being moved when others need help).Verbal or physical expressions:He/she shows less verbal or physical reactions that reveal his/her emotional states.B3. SOCIAL INTERACTIONLoss of, or diminished engagement in social interaction as evidenced by at least one of the following:Spontaneous social initiative:the patient takes less initiative in spontaneously proposing social or leisure activities to family or others.Environmentally stimulated social interaction:He/she participates less, or is less comfortable or more indifferent to social or leisure activities suggested by people around him/her.Relationship with family members:He/she shows less interest in family members (e.g., to know what is happening to them, to meet them or make arrangements to contact them).Verbal interaction:He/she is less likely to initiate a conversation, or he/she withdraws soon from itHomebound: He /She prefer to stays at home more frequently or longer than usual and shows less interest in getting out to meet people. CRITERION CThese symptoms (A - B) cause clinically significant impairment in personal, social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. CRITERION DThe symptoms (A - B) are not exclusively explained or due to physical disabilities (e.g. blindness and loss of hearing), to motor disabilities, to a diminished level of consciousness, to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g. drug of abuse, medication), or to major changes in the patient’s environment. Conclusions: The new diagnostic criteria for apathy provide a clinical and scientific framework to increase the validity of apathy as a clinical construct. This should also help to pave the path for apathy in brain disorders to be an interventional target.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,120
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,130
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,120
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,633

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1200,130
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,006
Bibliométrie0,0080,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,004
Communication savante0,0060,007
Science ouverte0,0090,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,012
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,321
Écart entre enseignants0,305 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations305
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEuropean PsychiatryMême sujetObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersTravaux en français237 207