ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2021
Clinical Features of Psychotic Disorders: Comparing Categorical and Dimensional Models.
Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Restoring Course as a Core Diagnostic Element of Psychotic Disorders.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Review
- Transdiagnostic modeling of clinician-rated symptoms in affective and nonaffective psychotic disorders.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2025Article
- The need for evidence-based updating of ICD and DSM models of psychotic and mood disorders.Molecular psychiatry · 2023Article
- Use of DSM-5 diagnoses vs. other clinical information by US academic-affiliated psychiatrists in assessing and treating psychotic disorders.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Despite research demonstrating the value of dimensional approaches, standard systems for classifying psychotic disorders rely primarily on categorization of patients into distinct diagnoses. We present the first study comparing analyses of dimensional features, categories, and standard diagnoses, all derived from the same sample. Methods: Using symptom ratings from 934 patients hospitalized for psychosis, we examined dimensional models, fit using factor analysis, categorical models, fit to factor-based scores from the dimensional model, and their correspondence with DSM-defined diagnoses. We compared the ability of each model to discriminate patients' assignment to medication regimen as a clinical validator. Results: Dimensional modeling identified four factors (manic, depressive, negative symptoms, and positive symptoms), which corresponded to factors in prior studies and appeared robust to statistical approach. Scores based on these factors overlapped substantially among DSM diagnoses. Patients assigned to clusters had less overlap in factor-based scores. However, categorical models were sensitive to statistical approach. The addition of DSM diagnoses, but not cluster assignments, improved the fits of models with dimensional scores alone as the clinical predictors for some medication classes. Conclusions: The results highlight the variability of symptom presentation within DSM-defined diagnostic categories, the utility of symptom dimensions or factors, and a potential lack of robustness of data-driven categorical approaches. Findings support initiatives to develop updated diagnostic systems that complement categorical classification of psychotic illness with factors representing dimensional ratings of symptoms.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.