Andreasen N C, Grove W M, Coryell W H, Endicott J, Clayton P J
Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City 52242.
J Affect Disord. 1988 Jul-Aug;15(1):69-80. doi: 10.1016/0165-0327(88)90011-0.
The primary versus secondary distinction is often used as a way of subtyping depression. Its applicability to bipolar disorders has been unclear. This report examines the relative primacy of the bipolar versus unipolar distinction as compared to the primary versus secondary distinction in a sample of 955 patients in the NIMH Collaborative Study of the Psychobiology of Depression. These patients are divided into nine groups of the basis of whether they are bipolar I, bipolar II, or unipolar, and whether they are primary, 'pure' secondary, or 'complicated' secondary (i.e. bipolar I primary, bipolar I pure secondary, bipolar I complicated, etc.). Three sets of variables are used to determine the predictive validity of these various subtypes: data concerning age of onset and phenomenology of current episode, outcome, and familial prevalence. In general, data from these three sets of validators suggest that the bipolar distinction takes precedence over the primary versus secondary distinction. Within bipolars, there is little value in further subtyping into primary versus secondary.
原发性与继发性的区分常被用作对抑郁症进行亚型分类的一种方式。其在双相情感障碍中的适用性尚不清楚。本报告在国立精神卫生研究所抑郁症心理生物学合作研究的955名患者样本中,考察了双相情感障碍与单相情感障碍区分相对于原发性与继发性区分的相对首要性。这些患者根据其是双相I型、双相II型还是单相情感障碍,以及是原发性、“单纯”继发性还是“复杂”继发性(即双相I型原发性、双相I型单纯继发性、双相I型复杂型等)被分为九组。使用三组变量来确定这些不同亚型的预测效度:关于当前发作的起病年龄和现象学的数据、结局以及家族患病率。总体而言,来自这三组验证指标的数据表明,双相情感障碍的区分比原发性与继发性的区分更为重要。在双相情感障碍患者中,进一步细分为原发性与继发性的价值不大。