Catatonia in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As international scholars of catatonia, we are concerned that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) proposes to delete the codes 295.2 (schizophrenia, catatonic type) and 293.89 (catatonia secondary to a medical condition) and to substitute a noncoded "catatonia specifier" as the principal identifier. We believe that these changes will badly serve clinical practice and research. We advocate a unique and broadly defined code for catatonia in DSM-V. Catatonia is common among hospitalized psychiatric patients, including adults, adolescents, and occasionally children. In the 10 principal prospective studies from sites around the world, catatonia syndrome was identified in a mean (SEM) percentage of 9.8% (1.4%) of adult admissions (Table 1). These patients have multiple signs of catatonia (commonly >5); 68% (6%) are mute, and 62% (3%) are negativistic or withdrawn. Some are unable to eat, requiring parenteral nutrition and/or medication.TABLE 1: Prospective Studies of the Incidence of CatatoniaOnce catatonia is recognized, first-line treatment with benzodiazepines usually brings prompt relief, although high doses may be needed. If catatonia persists, electroconvulsive therapy is often rapidly beneficial. Every prospective study confirms that catatonia syndrome exists, occasionally becomes malignant, and requires prompt treatment. Under the proposed new guidelines for DSM-V, patients with catatonia syndrome will lack an informative diagnosis. Mutism, negativism, and withdrawal prevent assessment for mood, cognitive, and psychotic symptoms and impede proper delineation of episodes of prior illness. Without findings for a specific diagnosis, it is rational to use a provisional diagnosis of the catatonia syndrome to allow tests and treatments to proceed. Lacking recognition and treatment, catatonia may persist or worsen with adverse or life-threatening results. On the other hand, when patients with catatonia are identified and treated, they become verbal and interactive, allowing interviews and more definitive diagnoses, regardless of the primary pathological findings. When patients cannot provide information, clinicians may conflate or misdiagnose catatonia with schizophrenia (as in the DSM-IV schema), impute a psychotic process, foster the unproven use of neuroleptics, and risk adverse effects, such as conversion to malignant catatonia or the neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Similarly, assignment of catatonia to "psychosis not otherwise specified" (298.9, DSM-IV and DSM-V) would be erroneous because these patients often either lack hallucinations and delusions or cannot be assessed for them. The proposed elimination of DSM-IV "catatonia due to a general medical condition" (293.89) renders the coding for catatonia arising from general medical conditions problematic. At clinical presentation, the medical/toxic factors are rarely known, as time is often needed to identify these etiologies. We also note that noncoded specifiers are not useful for research on nosology, treatment, and outcome. To address all these issues, we urge inclusion in DSM-V of a specific diagnostic code for catatonia. One simple option is to retain the 293.89 code but revise its formulation to broadly encompass the catatonia syndrome without imputing a link to either primary psychiatric or general medical conditions. A unique and broadly defined code would foster recognition of the catatonia syndrome and permit research on nosology, treatment, and outcome. These goals are not met with the DSM-V plan for noncoded modifiers.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it