Where Are We Going? An Update on Assessment, Treatment, and Neurobiological Research in Dissociative Disorders as We Move Toward the <i>DSM-5</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the process of developing the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) of the American Psychiatric Association with a focus on issues related to the trauma-related disorders, particularly the dissociative disorders (DD). We also discuss the highlights of research within the past 5 years in the assessment, treatment, and neurobiological basis of trauma disorders. Recent research shows that DD are associated with severe symptoms as well as a higher rate of utilization of mental health treatment compared with other psychiatric disorders. As a result, DD, like other complex posttraumatic disorders, exact a high economic as well as personal burden for patients and society. The latest research indicates that DD patients show a suboptimal response to standard exposure-based treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder as well as high levels of attrition from treatment. An emerging body of research on DD treatment, primarily of naturalistic and open trials, indicates that patients who receive specialized treatment that addresses their trauma-based, dissociative symptoms show improved functioning and reduced symptoms. Recent studies of the underlying neurobiological basis for dissociation support a model of excessive limbic inhibition in DD that is consistent with the phenomenology and clinical presentation of these patients. We are optimistic that the forthcoming DSM-5 will stimulate research on dissociation and the DD and suggest areas for future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".