CLINICAL APPLICATION OF ICD-11 AND ITS UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE PSYCHIATRISTS AND POST GRADUATE PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTS OF PAKISTAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To find out the problems associated with the clinical utilization of ICD-11 by the psychiatrists of Pakistan. To understand the basic description of its utilization in clinical practice. Study design: It is a cross-sectional descriptive study. Place and duration of study: The study was conducted through an online survey which was circulated to the psychiatrists across country. Subjects and methods: A sample size of 130 psychiatrists including the post graduate residents responded to the e-mail and WhatsApp messages. The survey was on Google Docs, and it was an online survey with responses of “yes, no and don't know”. The ethical approval for the survey was taken from Pakistan psychiatric research centre, fountain house Lahore, Pakistan. Results: Out of 130 psychiatrists, 65.4% were the residents who heard about ICD-11 mostly from academic activity conducted by the authors. 48.5% of psychiatrists believe that it is difficult to adjust with the new classification system. Conclusion: ICD-11 is a new classification system. It requires training from the seniors and workshops related to its utility through the online mortality and morbidity statistics by WHO across various countries.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".