Psychoanalytic Patients in the U.S., Canada, and Australia: II. A DSM-III-R Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to validate our previous work on the DSM-III-R disorders diagnosed in patients in psychoanalysis in the U.S., Canada, and Australia and to determine which specific mood, anxiety, and personality disorders were the most common in these patients. The earlier study consisted of three surveys of psychoanalytic practice that together obtained data on 1,718 patients, through extensive mail surveys to analysts in the three countries. In the validation study, 206 patients were diagnosed using a different technique. Analysts similar in important respects to those who participated in the original surveys rated patients diagnostically before and after DSM-III-R training. After training, no significant changes appeared in the rates for any of the specific mood disorders. For the thirty disorders examined, training effects decreased the identification of the generalized anxiety disorder, and increased the identification of three personality disorders: avoidant, dependent, and personality disorder not otherwise specified. Thus, analysts slightly underdiagnosed the number of personality disorders, and some "anxious" patients appear to have qualified for personality disorders. Some limitations of the DSM-III-R notion of narcissistic personality are discussed, as are the importance and stability of the self-defeating (masochistic) personality disorder. The most common Axis I disorder in psychoanalytic patients was dysthymia, followed by major depression, recurrent. This study reinforces the findings of the original three surveys. Minor corrections were developed to adjust the original three surveys.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".