The Impact of Changing Diagnostic Criteria in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in a Canadian Epidemiologic Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article AbstractBackground: Since its inclusion in DSM-III, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has undergone a number of changes in its diagnostic criteria, including the expansion of Criterion A (traumatic stressor), the addition of symptom duration (none specified in DSM-III), and the requirement for impairment or distress (Criterion F, DSM-IV only). Method: This study examined the impact of changes in PTSD diagnostic criteria using a Canadian PTSD epidemiologic sample. The rates of PTSD and its correlates were evaluated in a nationally representative random sample of 3,006 adults. DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and ICD-10 criteria were employed. DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10 rates were re-evaluated, substituting specific DSM-IV criteria (A-F). Results: The prevalence rates of lifetime PTSD ranged from 13.4% (DSM-III) to 13.0% (ICD-10) to 12.2% (DSM-III-R) to 9.2% (DSM-IV); all rates differed significantly from each other (P < .001). Regardless of diagnostic criteria, most people reported more than 1-year duration of symptoms, although rates were significantly higher in those with DSM-IV PTSD (68.2%, P < .0001). Rates of comorbid major depressive disorder and alcohol and substance abuse and dependence were also significantly higher (P < .05) using the DSM-IV PTSD criteria, and those with DSM-IV PTSD reported significantly higher rates of help-seeking (P < .001). When Criterion F was added to earlier versions, lifetime PTSD rates became much closer to those obtained using DSM-IV criteria: 10.6% (DSM-III), 10.2% (DSM-III-R), and 9.9% (ICD-10); however, rates fluctuated when operational definitions of Criterion F were modified. DSM-III PTSD was also substantially affected by DSM-IV Criteria A and C. Conclusions: DSM-IV PTSD may identify a more severe disorder. The addition of the clinical significance criterion (F) appeared to affect the greatest change in prevalence rates. Defining Criterion F as having both clinically significant psychological distress and functional impairment lowered the diagnostic threshold to a greater degree than did either distress or impairment alone. This information may be useful for future revisions of PTSD diagnostic criteria.J Clin Psychiatry 2011;72(8):1034-1041Submitted: September 15, 2009; accepted February 2, 2010. Online ahead of print: May 31, 2011 (doi:10.4088/JCP.09m05700). Corresponding author: Michael Van Ameringen, MD, FRCPC, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, 439-1 Fontbonne Building, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, 301 James St S, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8P 3B5 (vanamer@mcmaster.ca).
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".