{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03088803088803089, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003088803088803089, 'mean_word_length': 5.857142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, '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}}
A polydiagnostic scale for dimensional classification of endogenous depression Derivation and validation

Abstract— Several operational diagnoses (OPD) for endogenous depression have been proposed. However ‐ though aiming at similar clinical concepts ‐ the amount of association and agreement between different OPD is rather low. In this study the relationship between eight OPD (Research Diagnostic Criteria, DSM‐III, Michigan Discrimination Index, Newcastle Scale I, Newcastle Scale II, Taylor‐Abrams Criteria, Vienna Research Criteria, Hamilton Endogenomorphy Index) was assessed by applying latent trait analyses to the classificatory data of these eight OPD which were rated simultaneously in a sample of 173 depressive inpatients. According to these analyses six OPD (RDC, DSM‐III, NCS‐I, NCS‐II, TAC and VRC) are tapping the same phenomenon. This latent trait represents compatible concepts of endogenous depression; it is strongly associated with the independently assessed clinical ICD‐9 diagnosis of endogenous depression. The six OPD can be considered as items of a scale (so‐called OPD‐scale). The total scores of the OPD‐scale represent a dimensional assessment of the decisiveness of the diagnosis endogenous depression. Coefficients and parameters of this new scale are presented.