Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 522

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Family History Approach to Diagnosis: How Useful Is It?

Andreasen, Nancy C.·1986·Archives of General Psychiatry
DOI 10.1001/archpsyc.1986.01800050019002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Determining the rate to which various psychiatric illnesses are familial is one widely used method for validating diagnostic categories and determining the likelihood of genetic or nongenetic patterns of transmission. Data for these studies can be collected through direct interview of all available relatives (the family study method) or by obtaining information indirectly from the patient and other family members (the family history method). Information based on direct interview is usually considered to be more accurate, although the family history method permits collection of data on a larger and more comprehensive group of relatives. We explored the extent to which data collected by these two methods were in agreement. In general, the results confirmed the usefulness of the family history method. Although it has some limitations, such as underreporting, it has respectable sensitivity for many major diagnoses when broad but well-specified criteria are used.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.1986.01800050019002

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Andreasen, N. C.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1986-05-01
Volume
43
Issue
5
Pages
421
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archpsyc.1986.01800050019002
OpenAlex
W1989665315
Cited by
522
References
1
FWCI
11.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.