Why We Still Use “Organic Causes”: Results From a Survey of Psychiatrists and Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnostic category of "organic disorders" was officially removed from the psychiatric nosology in DSM-IV, published in 1994. Despite this change, physicians continue to use the term "organic causes" to refer to medical and neurological causes of psychiatric symptoms, and it remains part of the ICD-10 classification. In the context of increasing integration of psychiatric disorders within a medical and neuroscientific framework, the reasons behind the ongoing use of this term (reminiscent of mind-body dualism) have to be clarified. The authors conducted a survey of 391 Canadian psychiatrists and psychiatric residents to understand attitudes and beliefs related to this terminology and then applied qualitative and quantitative analyses. Results showed that the terminology is used by the majority (55.9%) of psychiatrists and residents for two main reasons: out of a habit that begins in residency training and because of the belief that other specialties do not fully understand alternative terminology. The authors found that some psychiatrists are concerned that their patients will not receive adequate investigation unless it is made clear through use of the "organic cause" term that other medical causes of psychiatric symptoms are suspected. Use of the "organic cause" term was predicted by being of younger age, performing emergency department calls, and finding alternative terminology difficult to use. These findings highlight the importance of reflecting on and discussing the effect of this terminology used in psychiatry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".