PANIC DISORDER AND AGORAPHOBIA: AN OVERVIEW AND COMMENTARY ON DSM-5 CHANGES
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
The recently published DSM-5 contains a number of changes pertinent to panic disorder and agoraphobia. These changes include separation of panic disorder and agoraphobia into separate diagnoses, the addition of criteria and guidelines for distinguishing agoraphobia from specific phobia, the addition of a 6-month duration requirement for agoraphobia, the addition of panic attacks as a specifier to any DSM-5 diagnosis, changes to descriptors of panic attack types, as well as various changes to the descriptive text. It is crucial that clinicians and researchers working with individuals presenting with panic attacks and panic-like symptoms understand these changes. The purpose of the current paper is to provide a summary of the main changes, to critique the changes in the context of available empirical evidence, and to highlight clinical implications and potential impact on mental health service utilization. Several of the changes have the potential to improve access to evidence-based treatment; yet, although certain changes appear justified in that they were based on converging evidence from different empirical sources, other changes appear questionable, at least based on the information presented in the DSM-5 text and related publications. Ongoing research of DSM-5 panic disorder and agoraphobia as well as application of the new diagnostic criteria in clinical contexts is needed to further inform the strengths and limitations of DSM-5 conceptualizations of panic disorder and agoraphobia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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