Paradigm Shifts and the Development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Past Experiences and Future Aspirations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Work is currently under way on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Fifth Edition, due to be published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013. Dissatisfaction with the current categorical descriptive approach has led to aspirations for a paradigm shift for DSM-5. METHOD: A historical review of past revisions of the DSM was performed. Efforts undertaken before the start of the DSM-5 development process to conduct a state-of-the science review and set a research agenda were examined to determine if results supported a paradigm shift for DSM-5. Proposals to supplement DSM-5 categorical diagnosis with dimensional assessments are reviewed and critiqued. RESULTS: DSM revisions have alternated between paradigm shifts (the first edition of the DSM in 1952 and DSM-III in 1980) and incremental improvements (DSM-II in 1968, DSM-III-R in 1987, and DSM-IV in 1994). The results of the review of the DSM-5 research planning initiatives suggest that despite the scientific advances that have occurred since the descriptive approach was first introduced in 1980, the field lacks a sufficiently deep understanding of mental disorders to justify abandoning the descriptive approach in favour of a more etiologically based alternative. Proposals to add severity and cross-cutting dimensions throughout DSM-5 are neither paradigm shifting, given that simpler versions of such dimensions are already a component of DSM-IV, nor likely to be used by busy clinicians without evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial aspirations that DSM would undergo a paradigm shift with this revision, DSM-5 will continue to adopt a descriptive categorical approach, albeit with a greatly expanded dimensional component.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.382 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".