Cited by 242Mental Health and PsychiatryPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health Research Topics

Exploring the feasibility of a meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11: could it improve utility and validity?: Paper 1 of 7 of the thematic section: ‘A proposal for a meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11’

Open access
Andrews, G., Goldberg, D. P., Krueger, R. F., Carpenter, W. T., Hyman, S. E., Sachdev, P., Pine, D. S.·2009·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: The organization of mental disorders into 16 DSM-IV and 10 ICD-10 chapters is complex and based on clinical presentation. We explored the feasibility of a more parsimonious meta-structure based on both risk factors and clinical factors. Method: Most DSM-IV disorders were allocated to one of five clusters as a starting premise. Teams of experts then reviewed the literature to determine within-cluster similarities on 11 predetermined validating criteria. Disorders were included and excluded as determined by the available data. These data are intended to inform the grouping of disorders in the DSM-V and ICD-11 processes. Results: The final clusters were neurocognitive (identified principally by neural substrate abnormalities), neurodevelopmental (identified principally by early and continuing cognitive deficits), psychosis (identified principally by clinical features and biomarkers for information processing deficits), emotional (identified principally by the temperamental antecedent of negative emotionality), and externalizing (identified principally by the temperamental antecedent of disinhibition). Conclusions: Large groups of disorders were found to share risk factors and also clinical picture. There could be advantages for clinical practice, public administration and research from the adoption of such an organizing principle.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291709990250

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The application of validity criteria (validators) is much more meaningful for larger groups or disorder spectra than for individual categorical diagnoses.

    “It was rapidly recognized that the application of such 'validators' was much more meaningful for larger groups or disorder spectra than for individual categorical diagnoses.”

    From The DSM-5: Classification and criteria changes (2013) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Introduction says that delimitation by validating factors might be best observed at the cluster rather than the individual-disorder level. The Criteria section also says validators originally developed for disorders were extended to clusters. But the paper does not establish that applying validators generally is much more meaningful for clusters, as the citing sentence asserts; the comparison in the Introduction is narrower and tentative. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A broad internalising liability or a common distress/negative affectivity component underlies anxiety and depressive disorders.

    “structural modelling studies showing that a broad internalising liability or a common distress/negative affectivity component underlies anxiety and depressive disorders (Andrews et al., 2009;Watson, 2005)”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andrews, G., Goldberg, D. P., Krueger, R. F., Carpenter, W. T., Hyman, S. E., Sachdev, P., & Pine, D. S.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
Corresponding author
Andrews, G.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2009-10-01
Volume
39
Issue
12
Pages
1993-2000
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2147152064
Cited by
242
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 32
FWCI
273.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
DSM-V, ICD-11, psychiatric classification, metastructures, risk factors, neurocognitive disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders, psychosis, emotional disorders, externalizing disorders, negative affectivity, disinhibition, information processing deficits, diagnostic validity
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Publishing, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Editorial Policies, 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