3 ms·
This is nonsense. "This study provides yet more evidence..." What evidence? This is a book report. Sure, DMS diagnostics are not perfect. In an ideal world we'd
by subroutine 7y ago
This is nonsense. "This study provides yet more evidence..." What evidence? This is a book report. Sure, DMS diagnostics are not perfect. In an ideal world we'd compile a biomarker screen, genomic analysis, MRI/DTI/fMRI brain imaging data, covert/overt behavioral analysis, 100 question screener, family interviews, etc. etc. But in the real world, for a first-pass psychiatric triage, if you're not using DSM guidelines, you're using your own intuition.
- phkahler 7y agoIn your ideal world with things like biomarker screens and MRIs, what exactly would you try to correlate any physical evidence with? You can't say "these genetic markers have a high correlation with schizophrenia" for example without first screening for schizophrenia via something like the DSM. But if you can diagnose it with that already....
- subroutine 7y agoFor the most part, I agree. There are some scenarios where you could profile a condition based on, say, gene sequencing data more readily than in a diagnostic interview. Maybe like... foster parents call a clinic asking about treatments for possible Fetal Alcohol Syndrome; you query the electronic med records of the child which include a recent dna test, and it turns out the diagnosis is William's Syndrome. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/williams-syndrome#genes https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/williams-syndrome#genes Are we close to being able to do this for conditions like depression, schizophrenia, autism... not so much.