Empirical Testing of Criteria for Dissociative Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the validity of dissociative schizophrenia diagnostic criteria. In the first phase, 50 participants with a psychotic disorder were administered the Dissociative Experiences Scale and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire to identify those with dissociative characteristics. In the second phase, we selected those who had a score of 15 or above on the Dissociative Experiences Scale. Fifteen of these participants were evaluated thoroughly with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II, and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders to determine whether they met the criteria for dissociative schizophrenia and to generate a clinical description. Our results indicated that 24% of the individuals we tested met these criteria. We propose making mandatory 1 of the 3 dissociative symptoms of the criteria to eliminate people with only nonspecific symptoms (e.g., extensive comorbidity). According to this modified criterion, 14% of our sample would receive a diagnosis of dissociative schizophrenia. However, a more comprehensive look at the clinical picture begs the question of whether dissociative schizophrenia is truly present in every person meeting the criteria. We discuss the relevance of creating a new schizophrenia subtype and offer recommendations for clinicians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".