{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026184538653366583, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016209476309226933, 'mean_word_length': 5.528455284552845, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An invisible college view of the DSM-5 personality disorder classification.

The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group released the final proposed changes for the upcoming manual in May 2012. The proposal, located at www.dsm5.org , included a hybrid dimensional/categorical method of diagnosing personality disorders. This brief article examines the reference section of the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal rationale (American Psychiatric Association, 2012). The authors counted the number of authors and the coauthorships; coauthorship patterns were then examined and diagramed. The data suggested that a group of researchers involved with the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS) were central to the hybrid classification created by the DSM-5 work group.