Suppr超能文献

亲属提供的信息。情感障碍的诊断。

Information from relatives. Diagnosis of affective disorders.

作者信息

Gershon E S, Guroff J J

出版信息

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1984 Feb;41(2):173-80. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1984.01790130069010.

Abstract

We compared diagnoses made blindly by experienced clinicians from interview records with diagnoses obtained by computer pooling and scoring of relatives' information on the same persons. For major affective disorder diagnosed by interview, the relatives' information agreed on presence of affective illness for 96% of 159 probands and 48% of 195 relatives of affectively ill and control probands. In 1,093 relatives of affectively ill and control probands, the k values for diagnostic agreement were as follows: any major affective disorder, 51; bipolar I disorder, .61; and unipolar disorder, .42. Schizoaffective and bipolar II diagnoses did not show significant agreement. Only 15% of interview-diagnosed relatives were identified as having a major affective disorder by one informant alone, going up to 64% agreement with four or more informants. Final diagnostic estimate from all available information, including medical records, generally followed the interview diagnosis rather than the relatives' information.

摘要

我们将经验丰富的临床医生根据访谈记录盲目做出的诊断,与通过对同一人群亲属信息进行计算机汇总和评分得出的诊断进行了比较。对于通过访谈诊断出的重度情感障碍,在159名先证者中,96%的亲属信息与情感疾病的存在情况相符;在195名情感疾病先证者和对照先证者的亲属中,48%的亲属信息相符。在1093名情感疾病先证者和对照先证者的亲属中,诊断一致性的k值如下:任何重度情感障碍为0.51;双相I型障碍为0.61;单相障碍为0.42。精神分裂情感障碍和双相II型障碍的诊断未显示出显著一致性。仅15%经访谈诊断的亲属被一名信息提供者单独认定患有重度情感障碍,而有四名或更多信息提供者时,一致性上升至64%。包括病历在内的所有可用信息得出的最终诊断估计,通常遵循访谈诊断而非亲属信息。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验