| Title |
Informing DSM-5: biological boundaries between bipolar I disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-127 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Victoria E Cosgrove, Trisha Suppes |
| Abstract |
The fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) opted to retain existing diagnostic boundaries between bipolar I disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenia. The debate preceding this decision focused on understanding the biologic basis of these major mental illnesses. Evidence from genetics, neuroscience, and pharmacotherapeutics informed the DSM-5 development process. The following discussion will emphasize some of the key factors at the forefront of the debate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 164 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 14% |
| Researcher | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Other | 41 | 24% |
| Unknown | 23 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 49 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 24% |
| Neuroscience | 16 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,087,202
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,024
of 3,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,240
of 194,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#48
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.