Concerns Regarding the Inclusion of Temper Dysregulation Disorder With Dysphoria in the<i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i>, Fifth Edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article Abstract The authors strongly oppose including temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria (TDD) as an official diagnosis in the forthcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). The primary justification for the inclusion of this new diagnostic category is to have an alternate diagnosis for youths with severe, chronic irritability who may be currently diagnosed with bipolar disorder. However, the TDD diagnosis, as it is currently conceived, introduces problems of its own. The diagnosis of TDD rests on 2 primary criteria: recurrent severe temper outbursts and chronically irritable and/or sad mood. Because temper outbursts are a behavioral manifestation of irritable mood, the diagnosis of TDD as it is currently proposed, can be fulfilled with the presence of a single symptom, making it unlikely to be categorically distinct from oppositional defiant disorder, for example. Scientific support for the TDD diagnosis is limited, and most of it has emerged from a single research group. In the case of TDD, most of the studies that have a bearing on children with TDD have focused an overlapping but distinct population of youths with severe mood dysregulation (SMD). The research on SMD is groundbreaking, and it demonstrates that a subgroup of youths with severe, chronic irritability does not have bipolar disorder, but it is insufficient to justify the inclusion of TDD, a new diagnostic category, in the DSM-5.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".