MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W971637135 · doi:10.1177/070674371305801005

Should Psychiatry Be Expanding its Boundaries?

2013· article· en· W971637135 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Michels, Allen Frances

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychiatryPsychologyMEDLINEMedicinePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Robert Michels, MD1; Allen Frances, MD2'Walsh McDermott University Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, Cornell University, New York, New York.Correspondence: 418 East 71 Street, Suite 41, New York, NY 10021; rmichels@med.cornell.edu.'Professor Emeritus and former Chair, Department of Psychiatry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Chair, DSM-IV Task Force.Correspondence: 1820 Avenida Del Mundo, Coronado, CA 92118; allenfrances@vzw.blackberry.net.Progress Is Preferable to StagnationPsychiatry is the branch of medicine that deals with people who are vulnerable to or troubled by mental, emotional, or psychological pain, distress, or disability, and for whom the profession may provide prevention, relief, support, care, treatment, cure, or rehabilitation. That is a broad definition; it could encompass most of the universe. However, at any given time, the scope of psychiatry, including the range of people who should be considered potential patients, is limited by the limits of psychiatric knowledge and capacity-for whom will psychiatric intervention make a difference? As that knowledge and capacity expand, so will the boundaries of psychiatry.Note that these boundaries are not limited by decisions of the profession, by its desire for influence or power, or by the deliberations of a committee writing a diagnostic manual. If the latter does its job well, it does not decide what the boundaries should become, it describes the boundaries that exist at that time. It also recognizes that they will change over time as new knowledge leads to the development of new interventions that make a difference where previously there were none-for example, dietary interventions that prevent the development of mental disability in infants vulnerable to phenylketonuria, psychosocial interventions that diminish the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma victims, or psychopharmacologic interventions for patients with mild chronic mood disorders. In each of these situations, people who were not previously viewed as psychiatric patients achieved that status because the psychiatric profession developed the ability to help them. Psychiatry is a relatively young profession, perhaps 250 years old. Over those years, psychiatry has grown immensely in its knowledge and its capacity to help people, and, as a result, its boundaries have expanded. It began with the care of patients with serious disability and psychosis, but new knowledge and new treatments have expanded its domain to encompass patients with less disability who could live in the community but not thrive, patients with mood or anxiety disorders who were not psychotic and did not require institutionalization, people with serious personality disorders, people with addictions, and others. None of these expansions resulted from a decision about diagnostic nosology or nomenclature. Each resulted from the recognition of a social need, dissatisfaction with the profession's capacity to respond, the search for new knowledge, the trial of new interventions, and the profession's and the public's recognition of the social value of defining new populations as psychiatric patients.It would be tragic if this process were to come to a halt-our capacity is too limited and people who need more than we can now offer are too numerous. We look forward to finer distinctions among people who suffer and greater precision in our capacity for differential therapeutics, a concept that 1 believe Dr Frances and his colleagues developed.1 Interventions that operate at the genetic or epigenetic level, developmental interventions that are targeted at patterns of mental functioning, and strategies for counselling parents raising vulnerable children, all have promise.Certainly we do not want a committee that sits around and, without reference to what is happening in the outside world, decides whom should be included in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). …

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)0,031
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,031
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,165

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0310,059
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,047
Communication savante0,0150,042
Science ouverte0,0030,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0270,048
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,005

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 Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,380
Écart entre enseignants0,311 · 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'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

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

En bref

Citations2
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatryMême sujetChild and Adolescent HealthTravaux en français237 207