Wanders R B K, van Loo H M, Vermunt J K, Meijer R R, Hartman C A, Schoevers R A, Wardenaar K J, de Jonge P
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen,Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion regulation (ICPE),Groningen,The Netherlands.
Department of Methodology and Statistics,Tilburg University,Tilburg,The Netherlands.
Psychol Med. 2016 Dec;46(16):3371-3382. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716002221. Epub 2016 Sep 14.
In search of empirical classifications of depression and anxiety, most subtyping studies focus solely on symptoms and do so within a single disorder. This study aimed to identify and validate cross-diagnostic subtypes by simultaneously considering symptoms of depression and anxiety, and disability measures.
A large cohort of adults (Lifelines, n = 73 403) had a full assessment of 16 symptoms of mood and anxiety disorders, and measurement of physical, social and occupational disability. The best-fitting subtyping model was identified by comparing different hybrid mixture models with and without disability covariates on fit criteria in an independent test sample. The best model's classes were compared across a range of external variables.
The best-fitting Mixed Measurement Item Response Theory model with disability covariates identified five classes. Accounting for disability improved differentiation between people reporting isolated non-specific symptoms ['Somatic' (13.0%), and 'Worried' (14.0%)] and psychopathological symptoms ['Subclinical' (8.8%), and 'Clinical' (3.3%)]. Classes showed distinct associations with clinically relevant external variables [e.g. somatization: odds ratio (OR) 8.1-12.3, and chronic stress: OR 3.7-4.4]. The Subclinical class reported symptomatology at subthreshold levels while experiencing disability. No pure depression or anxiety, but only mixed classes were found.
An empirical classification model, incorporating both symptoms and disability identified clearly distinct cross-diagnostic subtypes, indicating that diagnostic nets should be cast wider than current phenomenology-based categorical systems.
在寻求抑郁症和焦虑症的实证分类时,大多数亚型研究仅关注症状,且仅在单一疾病范围内进行。本研究旨在通过同时考虑抑郁和焦虑症状以及残疾测量指标来识别和验证跨诊断亚型。
一大群成年人(生命线研究,n = 73403)对情绪和焦虑症的16种症状进行了全面评估,并测量了身体、社会和职业残疾情况。通过在独立测试样本中根据拟合标准比较有无残疾协变量的不同混合混合模型,确定了最佳拟合亚型模型。在一系列外部变量中比较了最佳模型的类别。
具有残疾协变量的最佳拟合混合测量项目反应理论模型确定了五个类别。考虑残疾情况改善了报告孤立非特异性症状(“躯体性”(13.0%)和“担忧性”(14.0%))的人与心理病理症状(“亚临床”(8.8%)和“临床”(3.3%))之间的区分。各类别与临床相关外部变量显示出明显的关联[例如,躯体化:优势比(OR)8.1 - 12.3,慢性应激:OR 3.7 - 4.4]。亚临床类别在经历残疾的同时报告了阈下水平的症状。未发现单纯的抑郁症或焦虑症类别,仅发现了混合类别。
一个结合症状和残疾情况的实证分类模型明确识别出了明显不同的跨诊断亚型,表明诊断网络应比当前基于现象学的分类系统覆盖范围更广。