Cited by 50Mental Health Research TopicsMental Health and PsychiatryFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Mapping the manuals of madness: Comparing the ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR using a network approach

Open access
Tio, Pia, Epskamp, Sacha, Noordhof, Arjen, Borsboom, Denny·2016·International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

Abstract

The International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) represent dominant approaches to diagnosis of mental disorders. However, it is unclear how these alternative systems relate to each other when taking into account the symptoms that make up the disorders. This study uses a network approach to investigate the overlap in structure between diagnostic networks pertaining to ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR. Networks are constructed by representing individual symptoms as nodes, and connecting nodes whenever the corresponding symptoms feature as diagnostic criteria for the same mental disorder. Results indicate that, relative to the DSM-IV-TR network, the ICD-10 network contains (a) more nodes, (b) lower level of clustering, and (c) a higher level of connectivity. Both networks show features of a small world, and have similar (of "the same") high centrality nodes. Comparison to empirical data indicates that the DSM-IV-TR network structure follows comorbidity rates more closely than the ICD-10 network structure. We conclude that, despite their apparent likeness, ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR harbour important structural differences, and that both may be improved by matching diagnostic categories more closely to empirically determined network structures. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mpr.1503

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tio, P., Epskamp, S., Noordhof, A., & Borsboom, D.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-03-30
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
267-276
ISSN
1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2318519311
Cited by
50
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4
FWCI
9.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
ICD-10, DSM-IV-TR, psychiatric classification, diagnostic criteria, symptom networks, network structure, comorbidities, small-world networks, centrality, classification system comparison
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Models, Statistical, International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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