PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8582310

[DSM IV and training: the limits].

L Colonna·M Zann
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Since its third edition, DSM has been considered to be an excellent tool for psychiatric research. The primary objective of this classificatory system was to put forward internationally accepted standard definitions. DSM diagnostic criteria are now indispensable for any publication in the scientific literature. It appears however that this work has gradually lost sight of its initial objective and is used as an educational tool for training of clinicians. What are the limits and risks of such a use? Can the DSM IV philosophy be reconciled with the objectives of training? Are the criteria in force for the selection of homogeneous patients groups identical to those which enable knowledge acquisition required for identification of disorders and their treatment? What is the heuristic value of enumerating symptoms and syndromes isolated from any theoretical context? Can symptoms be separated from the patient's history and personality? Is the excessive use of concurrent disorders not likely to be a source of conceptual and therapeutic inflation? Is a purely descriptive approach to psychiatric disorders not likely to run the risk of overestimating them? The points are discussed in succession by the authors.

Explore related subjects

ComorbidityCurriculumEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansMental DisordersPatient Care TeamPersonality DisordersPhilosophy, MedicalPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychiatryResearchEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Colonna, M Zann. 1995. [DSM IV and training: the limits].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8582310/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessing the comorbidity between asthma and depression through polygenic risk scoring and time-to-event models.

BACKGROUND: Patients with asthma have an increased risk of developing depression, affecting their quality of life. To date, the processes contributing to this comorbidity remain unclear. METHODS: We integrated two large genome-wide association studies (88,486 patients with asthma and 447,859 controls; 412,024 patients with depression and 1,587,577 controls) with cross-sectional and longitudinal information available from the All of Us Research Program (N = 87,167) through polygenic risk scoring (PRS), Cox proportional-hazards models, one-sample Mendelian randomization (MR), and gene-set and drug-repurposing analyses. RESULTS: We observed that depression PRS was associated with increased asthma risk (hazard ratio, HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.09-1.17), also when accounting for comorbidity status (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.04-1.12). Conversely, the effect of asthma PRS was null after accounting for comorbidity status. One-sample MR analysis showed an effect of depression genetic liability on asthma, ranging from beta = 0.36 ± 0.03 when considering a linear relationship to beta = 3.21 ± 0.31 when considering possible nonlinear relationships. Conversely, the effect of asthma genetic risk on depression was null after accounting for potential confounders. The gene-set analyses showed that asthma and depression polygenic risks share biological processes, molecular functions, and cellular components related to the immune system and the lung-brain axis. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic predisposition contributes to asthma-depression comorbidity through direct effects and shared pathogenic processes. These findings highlight the potential to develop targeted interventions to prevent and treat the co-occurrence of respiratory and neuropsychiatric disorders.

Comorbidity↗