Dataset Information

Poor Separation of Clinical Symptom Profiles by DSM-5 Disorder Criteria.

ABSTRACT: Assessment of mental illness typically relies on a disorder classification system that is considered to be at odds with the vast disorder comorbidity and symptom heterogeneity that exists within and across patients. Patients with the same disorder diagnosis exhibit diverse symptom profiles and comorbidities creating numerous clinical and research challenges. Here we provide a quantitative analysis of the symptom heterogeneity and disorder comorbidity across a sample of 107,349 adult individuals (aged 18-85 years) from 8 English-speaking countries. Data were acquired using the Mental Health Quotient, an anonymous, online, self-report tool that comprehensively evaluates symptom profiles across 10 common mental health disorders. Dissimilarity of symptom profiles within and between disorders was then computed. We found a continuum of symptom prevalence rather than a clear separation of normal and disordered. While 58.7% of those with 5 or more clinically significant symptoms did not map to the diagnostic criteria of any of the 10 DSM-5 disorders studied, those with symptom profiles that mapped to at least one disorder had, on average, 20 clinically significant symptoms. Within this group, the heterogeneity of symptom profiles was almost as high within a disorder label as between 2 disorder labels and not separable from randomly selected groups of individuals with at least one of any of the 10 disorders. Overall, these results quantify the scale of misalignment between clinical symptom profiles and DSM-5 disorder labels and demonstrate that DSM-5 disorder criteria do not separate individuals from random when the complete mental health symptom profile of an individual is considered. Greater emphasis on empirical, disorder agnostic approaches to symptom profiling would help overcome existing challenges with heterogeneity and comorbidity, aiding clinical and research outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Newson JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669440 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68-0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69-0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81-0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78-0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81-0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79-0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81-0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79-0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.

Project description:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) specify two dimensions of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms that are used to define three nominal subtypes: predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type (ADHD-H), predominantly inattentive type (ADHD-I), and combined type (ADHD-C). To aid decision making for DSM-5 and other future diagnostic systems, a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of 546 studies was completed to evaluate the validity of the DSM-IV model of ADHD. Results indicated that DSM-IV criteria identify individuals with significant and persistent impairment in social, academic, occupational, and adaptive functioning when intelligence, demographic factors, and concurrent psychopathology are controlled. Available data overwhelmingly support the concurrent, predictive, and discriminant validity of the distinction between inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms, and indicate that nearly all differences among the nominal subtypes are consistent with the relative levels of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms that define the subtypes. In contrast, the DSM-IV subtype model is compromised by weak evidence for the validity of ADHD-H after first grade, minimal support for the distinction between ADHD-I and ADHD-C in studies of etiological influences, academic and cognitive functioning, and treatment response, and the marked longitudinal instability of all three subtypes. Overall, we conclude that the DSM-IV ADHD subtypes provide a convenient clinical shorthand to describe the functional and behavioral correlates of current levels of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms, but do not identify discrete subgroups with sufficient long-term stability to justify the classification of distinct forms of the disorder. Empirical support is stronger for an alternative model that would replace the subtypes with dimensional modifiers that reflect the number of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms at the time of assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Dataset Information

Poor Separation of Clinical Symptom Profiles by DSM-5 Disorder Criteria.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets