How Do Clinicians Actually Use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in Clinical Practice and Why We Need to Know More
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is explicitly stated as a goal for both the DSM Fourth Edition and DSM Fifth Edition (DSM-5) revisions. Many uses assume a relatively faithful application of the DSM diagnostic definitions. However, studies demonstrate significant discrepancies between clinical psychiatric diagnoses with those made using structured interviews suggesting that clinicians do not systematically apply the diagnostic criteria. The limited information regarding how clinicians actually use the DSM raises important questions: a) How can the clinical use be improved without first having a baseline assessment? b) How can potentially significant shifts in practice patterns based on wording changes be assessed without knowing the extent to which the criteria are used as written? Given the American Psychiatric Association's plans for interim revisions to the DSM-5, the value of a detailed exploration of its actual use in clinical practice remains a significant ongoing concern and deserves further study including a number of survey and in vivo 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".