Kotov Roman, Ruggero Camilo J, Krueger Robert F, Watson David, Yuan Qilong, Zimmerman Mark
Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University, NY 11794, USA.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;68(10):1003-11. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.107.
Patterns of comorbidity among mental disorders are thought to reflect the natural organization of mental illness. Factor analysis can be used to investigate this structure and construct a quantitative classification system. Prior studies identified 3 dimensions of psychopathology: internalizing, externalizing, and thought disorder. However, research has largely relied on common disorders and community samples. Consequently, it is unclear how well the identified organization applies to patients and how other major disorders fit into it.
To analyze comorbidity among a wide range of Axis I disorders and personality disorders (PDs) in the general outpatient population.
Clinical cohort study.
A general outpatient practice, the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project.
Outpatients (N = 2900) seeking psychiatric treatment.
The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV and the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality.
We tested several alternative groupings of the 25 target disorders. The DSM-IV organization fit the data poorly. The best-fitting model consisted of 5 factors: internalizing (anxiety and eating disorders, major depressive episode, and cluster C, borderline, and paranoid PDs), externalizing (substance use disorders and antisocial PD), thought disorder (psychosis, mania, and cluster A PDs), somatoform (somatoform disorders), and antagonism (cluster B and paranoid PDs).
We confirmed the validity of the 3 previously found spectra in an outpatient population. We also found novel somatoform and antagonism dimensions, which this investigation was able to detect because, to our knowledge, this is the first study to include a variety of somatoform and personality disorders. The findings suggest that many PDs can be placed in Axis I with related clinical disorders. They also suggest that unipolar depression may be better placed with anxiety disorders than with bipolar disorders. The emerging quantitative nosology promises to provide a more useful guide to clinicians and researchers.
精神障碍共病模式被认为反映了精神疾病的自然组织形式。因子分析可用于研究这种结构并构建一个定量分类系统。先前的研究确定了精神病理学的三个维度:内化、外化和思维障碍。然而,研究很大程度上依赖于常见疾病和社区样本。因此,尚不清楚所确定的组织形式在患者中的适用程度以及其他主要疾病如何与之契合。
分析普通门诊人群中广泛的轴I障碍和人格障碍(PDs)之间的共病情况。
临床队列研究。
一家普通门诊机构,罗德岛改进诊断评估与服务方法(MIDAS)项目。
寻求精神科治疗的门诊患者(N = 2900)。
《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)结构化临床访谈和DSM-IV人格结构化访谈。
我们测试了25种目标疾病的几种替代分组。DSM-IV的组织形式与数据拟合不佳。最佳拟合模型由五个因子组成:内化(焦虑和饮食障碍、重度抑郁发作以及C类、边缘型和偏执型人格障碍)、外化(物质使用障碍和反社会人格障碍)、思维障碍(精神病、躁狂和A类人格障碍)、躯体形式(躯体形式障碍)和敌对性(B类和偏执型人格障碍)。
我们在门诊人群中证实了先前发现的三个谱系的有效性。我们还发现了新的躯体形式和敌对性维度,本研究能够检测到这些维度是因为,据我们所知,这是第一项纳入多种躯体形式和人格障碍的研究。研究结果表明,许多人格障碍可以与相关临床疾病一起归为轴I。它们还表明,单相抑郁与焦虑障碍归为一组可能比与双相障碍归为一组更好。新出现的定量疾病分类法有望为临床医生和研究人员提供更有用的指导。