MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dissociative Disorders in DSM-5

2013· review· en· W2614942140 on OpenAlexaff
David Spiegel, Roberto Lewis‐Fernández, Ruth A. Lanius, Eric Vermetten, Daphne Simeon, Matthew J. Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Clinical Psychology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDerealizationDissociative identity disorderDepersonalizationPsychologyDissociativeAmnesiaDissociative disordersBorderline personality disorderComorbidityConversion disorderPsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rationale, research literature, and proposed changes to the dissociative disorders and conversion disorder in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) are presented. Dissociative identity disorder will include reference to possession as well as identity fragmentation, to make the disorder more applicable to culturally diverse situations. Dissociative amnesia will include dissociative fugue as a subtype, since fugue is a rare disorder that always involves amnesia but does not always include confused wandering or loss of personality identity. Depersonalization disorder will include derealization as well, since the two often co-occur. A dissociative subtype of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), defined by the presence of depersonalization or derealization in addition to other PTSD symptoms, is being recommended, based upon new epidemiological and neuroimaging evidence linking it to an early life history of adversity and a combination of frontal activation and limbic inhibition. Conversion disorder (functional neurological symptom disorder) will likely remain with the somatic symptom disorders, despite considerable dissociative comorbidity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations202
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Clinical PsychologySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207