Prevalence and comorbidity rates of disruptive mood dysregulation disorder in epidemiological and clinical samples: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the prevalence of disruptive mood dysregulation disorders (DMDD) in community-based and clinical populations. METHODS: PubMed and PsychINFO databases were searched, using terms specific to DMDD, for studies of prevalence and comorbidity rates conducted in youths below 18. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reporting data from 2013 to 2023 were included. The prevalence of DMDD in the community-based samples was 3.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-6.0) and 21.9% (95% CI, 15.5-29.0) in the clinical population. The differences in the identification strategy of DMDD were associated with significant heterogeneity between studies in the community-based samples, with a prevalence of 0.82% (95% CI, 0.11-2.13) when all diagnosis criteria were considered. Anxiety, depressive disorders, and ADHD were the most frequent comorbidity present with DMDD. The association with other neurodevelopmental disorders remained poorly investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Caution is required when interpreting these findings, considering the quality of the reviewed data and the level of unexplained heterogeneity among studies. This review stresses the importance of considering a strict adhesion to DMDD criteria when exploring its clinical correlates.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".