Examining the Evidence for Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as a Clinical Diagnosis
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
This article examines the evidence for complex posttraumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD) as a clinical diagnosis distinct from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A brief overview of the history of the debate surrounding C-PTSD is presented. The construct validity of C-PTSD is evaluated, and the overlap among C-PTSD, PTSD, and borderline personality disorder is explored. The extent to which existing PTSD treatments reduce symptoms of C-PTSD is discussed, and the treatment outcome data underlying proposed C-PTSD treatment guidelines are reviewed. The authors explore the C-PTSD debate in light of the recent release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., American Psychiatric Association, 2013), which did not include C-PTSD as a diagnosis, and the proposed changes to the forthcoming International Classification of Diseases (11th revision), which is expected to include C-PTSD as a diagnosis (see Maercker et al., 2013). The authors maintain there is insufficient evidence to warrant the addition of a C-PTSD diagnosis or the dissemination of treatment guidelines for C-PTSD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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