MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225141027 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.860487

Why Mental Illness Diagnoses Are Wrong: A Pilot Study on the Perspectives of the Public

2022· article· en· W4225141027 on OpenAlexaff
Yi‐Sheng Chao, Chao-Jung Wu, Yi-Chun Lai, Hui‐Ting Hsu, Yen-Po Cheng, Hsing‐Chien Wu, Shih-Yu Huang, Wei‐Chih Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisMental illnessPsychiatryMoodMedicineClinical psychologyPsychologyMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Mental illness diagnostic criteria are made based on assumptions. This pilot study aims to assess the public’s perspectives on mental illness diagnoses and these assumptions. Methods An anonymous survey with 30 questions was made available online in 2021. Participants were recruited via social media, and no personal information was collected. Ten questions focused on participants’ perceptions regarding mental illness diagnoses, and 20 questions related to the assumptions of mental illness diagnoses. The participants’ perspectives on these assumptions held by professionals were assessed. Results Among 14 survey participants, 4 correctly answered the relationships of 6 symptom pairs (28.57%). Two participants could not correctly conduct the calculations involved in mood disorder diagnoses (14.29%). Eleven (78.57%) correctly indicated that 2 or more sets of criteria were available for single diagnoses of mental illnesses. Only 1 (7.14%) correctly answered that the associations between symptoms and diagnoses were supported by including symptoms in the diagnostic criteria of the diagnoses. Nine (64.29%) correctly answered that the diagnosis variances were not fully explained by their symptoms. The confidence of participants in the major depressive disorder diagnosis and the willingness to take medications for this diagnosis were the same (mean = 5.50, standard deviation [SD] = 2.31). However, the confidence of participants in the symptom-based diagnosis of non-solid brain tumor was significantly lower (mean = 1.62, SD = 2.33, p < 0.001). Conclusion Our study found that mental illness diagnoses are wrong from the perspectives of the public because our participants did not agree with all the assumptions professionals make about mental illness diagnoses. Only a minority of our participants obtained correct answers to the calculations involved in mental illness diagnoses. In the literature, neither patients nor the public have been engaged in formulating the diagnostic criteria of mental illnesses.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207