Caregiver–Child Discordance on the DSM-5 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure Among Youth in Outpatient Psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatric illness during childhood and adolescence is a growing concern, placing increased pressure on psychiatric services. Reliance on an evidence-based assessment tool may facilitate the identification and management of symptoms and may facilitate accountability. The purposes for this study were to characterize the psychiatric symptoms of a sample of pediatric patients accessing outpatient psychiatry using the DSM Level 1 Cross-Cutting Measure (CCSM), compare patient and caregiver ratings (CCSM), and explore patients’ acceptability of using the CCSM. The sample consisted of 51 patients (mean age 14 years) and 46 caregivers (mean age 43 years). Patient and caregiver ratings suggested problems with sleep, inattention, depression, irritability/anger, and anxiety. The most common discordance concerned suicide ideation. Most patients (34 of 38) reported that the assessment tool was easy to complete. The CCSM may be a useful, evidence-based, standardized, transdiagnostic assessment tool aligned with the DSM-5 that can be used in a variety of mental health settings to identify symptoms, inform treatment planning, and track progress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".