Aiding the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder: pattern recognition study of brain biomarkers
Open accessAbstract
Background: A diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder (DID) is controversial and prone to under- and misdiagnosis. From the moment of seeking treatment for symptoms to the time of an accurate diagnosis of DID individuals received an average of four prior other diagnoses and spent 7 years, with reports of up to 12 years, in mental health services. Aim: To investigate whether data-driven pattern recognition methodologies applied to structural brain images can provide biomarkers to aid DID diagnosis. Method: Structural brain images of 75 participants were included: 32 female individuals with DID and 43 matched healthy controls. Individuals with DID were recruited from psychiatry and psychotherapy out-patient clinics. Probabilistic pattern classifiers were trained to discriminate cohorts based on measures of brain morphology. Results: The pattern classifiers were able to accurately discriminate between individuals with DID and healthy controls with high sensitivity (72%) and specificity (74%) on the basis of brain structure. These findings provide evidence for a biological basis for distinguishing between DID-affected and healthy individuals. Conclusions: We propose a pattern of neuroimaging biomarkers that could be used to inform the identification of individuals with DID from healthy controls at the individual level. This is important and clinically relevant because the DID diagnosis is controversial and individuals with DID are often misdiagnosed. Ultimately, the application of pattern recognition methodologies could prevent unnecessary suffering of individuals with DID because of an earlier accurate diagnosis, which will facilitate faster and targeted interventions. Declaration of interest: The authors declare no competing financial interests.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 73
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Steinberg M. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D). American Psychiatric Press, 1993.
- Authors
- Reinders, A. A. T. S., Marquand, A. F., Schlumpf, Y. R., Chalavi, S., Vissia, E. M., Nijenhuis, E. R. S., Dazzan, P., Jäncke, L., & Veltman, D. J.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Clienia AG (CH)
- King's College London (GB)
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Reinders, Antje A. T. S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 2018-12-07
- Volume
- 215
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 536-544
- ISSN
- 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-1465
- OpenAlex
- W2903933851
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9
- FWCI
- 3.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- King's College London
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
- Radboud Universiteit
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (451–07-009, 016.156.415)
- KU Leuven
- Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen
- Universität Zürich
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Keywords
- dissociative identity disorder, neuroimaging biomarkers, brain structure, pattern recognition, structural neuroimaging, diagnostic accuracy, misdiagnosis, differential diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Adverse Childhood Experiences, Adult, Brain Mapping, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Biomarkers, Case-Control Studies, White Matter, Gray Matter
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