{"title":"The absurdity of the latent disease model in mental health: 10,130,814 ways to have a DSM-5-TR psychological disorder.","authors":"Nicholas C Borgogna, Tyler Owen, Stephen L Aita","doi":"10.1080/09638237.2023.2278107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Latent disease classification is currently the accepted approach to mental illness diagnosis. In the United States, this takes the form of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5-Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Latent disease classification has been criticized for reliability and validity problems, particularly regarding diagnostic heterogeneity. No authors have calculated the scope of the heterogeneity problem of the entire DSM-5-TR.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We addressed this issue by calculating the unique diagnostic profiles that exist for every DSM-5-TR diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did this by applying formulas previously used in smaller heterogeneity analyses to all diagnoses within the DSM-5-TR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that there are 10,130,814 ways to be diagnosed with a mental illness using DSM-5-TR criteria. When specifiers are considered, this number balloons to over 161 septillion unique diagnostic presentations (driven mainly by bipolar II disorder). Additionally, there are 1,951,065 ways to present with psychiatric symptoms, yet not meet diagnostic criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Latent disease classification leads to considerable heterogeneity in possible presentations. We provide examples of how latent disease classification harms research and treatment programs. We echo recommendations for the dismissal of latent disease classification as a mental illness diagnostic program.</p>","PeriodicalId":48135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health","volume":" ","pages":"451-459"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2023.2278107","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Latent disease classification is currently the accepted approach to mental illness diagnosis. In the United States, this takes the form of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5-Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Latent disease classification has been criticized for reliability and validity problems, particularly regarding diagnostic heterogeneity. No authors have calculated the scope of the heterogeneity problem of the entire DSM-5-TR.
Aims: We addressed this issue by calculating the unique diagnostic profiles that exist for every DSM-5-TR diagnosis.
Methods: We did this by applying formulas previously used in smaller heterogeneity analyses to all diagnoses within the DSM-5-TR.
Results: We found that there are 10,130,814 ways to be diagnosed with a mental illness using DSM-5-TR criteria. When specifiers are considered, this number balloons to over 161 septillion unique diagnostic presentations (driven mainly by bipolar II disorder). Additionally, there are 1,951,065 ways to present with psychiatric symptoms, yet not meet diagnostic criteria.
Conclusions: Latent disease classification leads to considerable heterogeneity in possible presentations. We provide examples of how latent disease classification harms research and treatment programs. We echo recommendations for the dismissal of latent disease classification as a mental illness diagnostic program.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Mental Health is an international forum for the latest research in the mental health field. Reaching over 65 countries, the journal reports on the best in evidence-based practice around the world and provides a channel of communication between the many disciplines involved in mental health research and practice. The journal encourages multi-disciplinary research and welcomes contributions that have involved the users of mental health services. The international editorial team are committed to seeking out excellent work from a range of sources and theoretical perspectives. The journal not only reflects current good practice but also aims to influence policy by reporting on innovations that challenge traditional ways of working.