改进 DSM-5 中认知障碍的诊断方法:发展性前视症揭示了定制诊断的必要性。

IF 3.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Behavior Research Methods Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-08 DOI:10.3758/s13428-024-02459-4
Edwin J Burns
{"title":"改进 DSM-5 中认知障碍的诊断方法:发展性前视症揭示了定制诊断的必要性。","authors":"Edwin J Burns","doi":"10.3758/s13428-024-02459-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) recommends diagnosing neurocognitive disorders (i.e., cognitive impairment) when a patient scores beyond - 1 SD below neurotypical norms on two tests. I review how this approach will fail due to cognitive tests' power limitations, validity issues, imperfect reliabilities, and biases, before summarizing their resulting negative consequences. As a proof of concept, I use developmental prosopagnosia, a condition characterized by difficulties recognizing faces, to show the DSM-5 only diagnoses 62-70% (n1 = 61, n2 = 165) versus 100% (n1 = 61) through symptoms alone. Pooling the DSM-5 missed cases confirmed the presence of group-level impairments on objective tests, which were further evidenced through meta-analyses, thus validating their highly atypical symptoms. These findings support a paradigm shift towards bespoke diagnostic approaches for distinct cognitive impairments, including a symptom-based method when validated effective. I reject dogmatic adherence to the DSM-5 approach to neurocognitive disorders, and underscore the importance of a data driven, transdiagnostic approach to understanding patients' subjective cognitive impairments. This will ultimately benefit patients, their families, clinicians, and scientific progress.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":" ","pages":"7872-7891"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362378/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the DSM-5 approach to cognitive impairment: Developmental prosopagnosia reveals the need for tailored diagnoses.\",\"authors\":\"Edwin J Burns\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13428-024-02459-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) recommends diagnosing neurocognitive disorders (i.e., cognitive impairment) when a patient scores beyond - 1 SD below neurotypical norms on two tests. I review how this approach will fail due to cognitive tests' power limitations, validity issues, imperfect reliabilities, and biases, before summarizing their resulting negative consequences. As a proof of concept, I use developmental prosopagnosia, a condition characterized by difficulties recognizing faces, to show the DSM-5 only diagnoses 62-70% (n1 = 61, n2 = 165) versus 100% (n1 = 61) through symptoms alone. Pooling the DSM-5 missed cases confirmed the presence of group-level impairments on objective tests, which were further evidenced through meta-analyses, thus validating their highly atypical symptoms. These findings support a paradigm shift towards bespoke diagnostic approaches for distinct cognitive impairments, including a symptom-based method when validated effective. I reject dogmatic adherence to the DSM-5 approach to neurocognitive disorders, and underscore the importance of a data driven, transdiagnostic approach to understanding patients' subjective cognitive impairments. This will ultimately benefit patients, their families, clinicians, and scientific progress.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Research Methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"7872-7891\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362378/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02459-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02459-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

精神障碍诊断统计手册》(DSM-5)建议,当患者在两项测试中的得分比神经典型标准低 1 SD 以上时,即可诊断为神经认知障碍(即认知功能障碍)。由于认知测试的能力限制、有效性问题、不完全可靠性和偏差,我将回顾这种方法是如何失败的,然后总结其导致的负面影响。作为概念证明,我使用发育性认脸症(一种以识别人脸困难为特征的疾病)来说明,DSM-5 仅诊断出 62-70%(n1 = 61,n2 = 165)的患者,而仅通过症状就诊断出 100%(n1 = 61)的患者。将 DSM-5 遗漏的病例汇总后,证实了客观测试中存在群体水平的障碍,而元分析进一步证明了这一点,从而验证了他们的高度非典型症状。这些发现支持向针对不同认知障碍的定制诊断方法转变,包括在验证有效时采用基于症状的方法。我反对教条式地遵循DSM-5对神经认知障碍的诊断方法,并强调数据驱动、跨诊断方法对理解患者主观认知障碍的重要性。这将最终有利于患者、患者家属、临床医生和科学进步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving the DSM-5 approach to cognitive impairment: Developmental prosopagnosia reveals the need for tailored diagnoses.

The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) recommends diagnosing neurocognitive disorders (i.e., cognitive impairment) when a patient scores beyond - 1 SD below neurotypical norms on two tests. I review how this approach will fail due to cognitive tests' power limitations, validity issues, imperfect reliabilities, and biases, before summarizing their resulting negative consequences. As a proof of concept, I use developmental prosopagnosia, a condition characterized by difficulties recognizing faces, to show the DSM-5 only diagnoses 62-70% (n1 = 61, n2 = 165) versus 100% (n1 = 61) through symptoms alone. Pooling the DSM-5 missed cases confirmed the presence of group-level impairments on objective tests, which were further evidenced through meta-analyses, thus validating their highly atypical symptoms. These findings support a paradigm shift towards bespoke diagnostic approaches for distinct cognitive impairments, including a symptom-based method when validated effective. I reject dogmatic adherence to the DSM-5 approach to neurocognitive disorders, and underscore the importance of a data driven, transdiagnostic approach to understanding patients' subjective cognitive impairments. This will ultimately benefit patients, their families, clinicians, and scientific progress.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
期刊最新文献
The talking heads attentional bias assessment task: A readily available, reliable, and effective task for assessing attentional bias. Estimating marginal effects with zero-inflated models: A tutorial with the R package mzim. Automating data extraction in meta-research: A multi-model benchmark in network psychometrics papers. Classification errors distort findings in automated speech processing: Examples and solutions from child-development research. Towards the ecological automated measurement of joint attention: Development of an interactive eye-tracking battery for joint attention in children with and without autism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1