How much or how often? Examining the screening properties of the DSM cross-cutting symptom measure in a youth population-based sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The DSM Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure (DSM-XC) allows for assessing multiple psychopathological domains. However, its capability to screen for mental disorders in a population-based sample and the impact of adverbial framings (intensity and frequency) on its performance are unknown. METHODS: = 3578, aged 22, 53.6% females) were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (LR+), and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios for each of the 13 DSM-XC domains were estimated for detecting five internalizing disorders (bipolar, generalized anxiety, major depressive, post-traumatic stress, and social anxiety disorders) and three externalizing disorders (antisocial personality, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, and alcohol use disorders). Sensitivities and specificities >0.75, LR+ > 2 and LR- < 0.5 were considered meaningful. Values were calculated for the DSM-XC's original scoring and for adverbial framings. RESULTS: Several DSM-XC domains demonstrated meaningful screening properties. The anxiety domain exhibited acceptable sensitivity and LR- values for all internalizing disorders. The suicidal ideation, psychosis, memory, repetitive thoughts and behaviors, and dissociation domains displayed acceptable specificity for all disorders. Domains also yielded small but meaningful LR+ values for internalizing disorders. However, LR+ and LR- values were not generally meaningful for externalizing disorders. Frequency-framed questions improved screening properties. CONCLUSIONS: The DSM-XC domains showed transdiagnostic screening properties, providing small but meaningful changes in the likelihood of internalizing disorders in the community, which can be improved by asking frequency of symptoms compared to intensity. The DSM-XC is currently lacking meaningful domains for externalizing disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".