MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757869504 · doi:10.1002/wps.20466

The ICD‐11 clinic‐based field studies are about to be concluded

2017· article· en· W2757869504 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luca Steardo

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Psychiatry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMental healthPsychiatryChinaFamily medicineLibrary sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinic-based (or ecological implementation) field studies, which will contribute to guide the construction of the chapter on mental and behavioural disorders of the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, are about to be concluded. The participating field studies coordinating centres have included the Department of Psychiatry of the Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil; the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre in Ottawa, Canada; the Shanghai Mental Health Centre in Shanghai, China; the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy of the Heinrich-Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany; the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Naples SUN in Naples, Italy; the Department of Psychiatry of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Delhi, India; the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology in Tokyo, Japan; the Department of Psychiatry of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon; the National Institute of Psychiatry Ramón de la Fuente in Mexico City, Mexico; the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria; the Moscow Research Institute of Psychiatry in Moscow, Russian Federation; the Department of Psychiatry of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid in Madrid, Spain; the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Cape Town, South Africa; and the Department of Psychiatry of the Columbia University in New York, USA. The clinic-based field studies have included two components: clinical consistency studies and clinical utility studies1, 2. The clinical consistency studies have covered the mental disorders accounting for the highest disease burden and utilization of mental health services worldwide3, 4. One protocol has covered psychotic and mood disorders in patients presenting with any psychotic symptom; a second protocol has focused on mood disorders, anxiety disorders and disorders specifically associated with stress in patients presenting with relevant symptoms but no psychotic feature; a third protocol has dealt with common childhood and adolescence mental disorders (attention deficit, disruptive behaviour, mood and anxiety disorders) in children and adolescents presenting with relevant symptoms. The studies have aimed to explore whether independent clinicians, based on the same information, arrive at the same diagnostic conclusion using the field study version of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines. The studies are allowing to identify the aspects of that version of the guidelines which are more likely to be interpreted differently by independent clinicians. The clinical utility studies have covered the mental disorders considered in the clinical consistency studies plus additional disorders of interest to study sites. Clinical utility has been repeatedly identified as a major objective of classifications of mental disorders5-7, but this is the first time that the clinical utility of a diagnostic system has been tested widely and systematically. The specific elements assessed have been: conceptualization (do the proposed diagnostic guidelines help in understanding and communicating the patient's condition?); goodness of fit (do the guidelines accurately capture patients’ symptom presentation?); ease of use (are the guidelines clear and easy to use in ordinary practice?); and adequacy (how adequate are the guidelines for the assessment of patients and for making clinical management decisions?). These studies have been conducted in patients seeking routine health care in specialty mental health care settings. Clinicians have applied the clinical guidelines and made ratings of their clinical utility with regards to each patient. The field study version of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for the various groups of mental disorders is being published on the Internet platform called GCP.Network (http://gcp.network) and is open for comments by registered members of the Global Clinical Practice Network. A reflection of the ongoing debate on the ICD-11 characterization of some groups of mental disorders – such as disorders related to sexuality and gender identity, bodily distress disorder, pathological gambling, Internet-related disorders, childhood disruptive behaviour and grief-related disorders – can be found in previous issues of this journal8-12. Luca Steardo Jr WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Naples SUN, Naples, Italy

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld PsychiatrySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207