Talk:Cognitive disengagement syndrome

message: I wrote "citation needed" in the sentence of causes, because I wonder in what way it is similar to ADHD when different genes and different regions of the brain are affected. Lova Falk 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes (citation needed) 

message: This sentence is not clear: "Roughly one in five responds with a therapeutic decrease in symptoms, while two thirds of this population will show mild benefits." Do you mean the following: "Only roughly one in five with SCT responds with a therapeutic decrease in symptoms, while two thirds of the other types of ADHD will show mild benefits." Lova Falk 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: I edited this sentence: "Those with SCT symptoms show a qualitatively different kind of attention deficit more typical of a true information input and output problem that one sees with a learning disability, than from those who have had a significant history of hyperactivity-impulsivity."
I found this sentence confusing, so I checked the reference: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1474811 
Neither "input and output problem", "learning disability", nor "history" is mentioned in this article. So I removed all those parts and left an abbreviated version of this sentence. 
Great source by the way! Lova Falk 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning difficulties? 

message: I reverted the edit by "24.6.174.110" that substituted ADD for SCT. There is no consensus (yet?) that ADD = SCT, and therefore the terms cannot simply be substituted. So if articles are referenced in which the treatment of ADD are described, we cannot just write SCT instead. In fact, at least one of the referenced articles says there is a difference between ADD and SCT: 
"Many ADD children, although not all, appear sluggish, drowsy, spacey, lethargic, and markedly hypoactive. They fit the criteria for having a sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT)." (Italics done by me).http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1474811 In this article, the term ADD is used for "the truly inattentive type of ADHD (not simply the subthreshold combined type)". So apparently, according to Adele Diamond, not all ADD children fit the criteria for SCT. Lova Falk 06:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADD and SCT 

message: Revised this section as noted. As I further explore references, I am concerned that a good part of this article is written in a biased manner, ie towards SCT being a distinct disorder, as opposed to the current (and recent, with the new DSM-V making no mention of it) scientific consensus that it is not a distinct disorder, as noted in the ongoing controversy section.
In regards to this dysexecutive section, I am not sure that it should exist. This section (prior to my edit) could be paraphrased as follows: "this paper (Diamond) says ADHD-I and SCT both have problems with EF. this paper (Barkley) says SCT does not have problems with EF. therefore, SCT is likely different from ADHD-I." In fact, as I alluded to in the edit, Diamond's paper actually simply assumes there is overlap between ADHD-I and SCT, but does not evaluate any proposed symptoms of SCT, and only mentions it in passing. It is hard to construe that she is actually claiming that those with SCT symptoms have problems with EF (again, since no SCT symptoms were evaluated). Since the Barkley paper, and the section as it reads now, simply states that those with SCT don't have problems with EF, I'm not sure why this is worth mentioning. (Other than to add a sense of scientific validity [via length] to the overall article.)
Quote from Diamond source (p4), only mention of SCT in entire 12 page paper, and only to state that she is not talking about SCT.
:"In this article, I focus on individuals with ADD (those who meet the criteria for inattentive-type ADHD and who are not hyperactive, excluding those with significant hyperactivity even if subthreshold for a combined-type diagnosis according to current DSM criteria). There is considerable overlap between what I am calling 'ADD' and what others have called 'slow cognitive tempo' (SCT; e.g., Milich et al., 2001), but SCT includes additional features that characterize only a subset of children with ADD."
Should this section disappear?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.136 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Dysexecutive Syndrome 

message: As I further reference check and find less and less evidence that anyone besides a few believe that this is a distinct disorder, I propose that the page be newly reorganized. Rather than "disorder: causes, treatment, prognosis, controversy", I think it should take the form of "proposed disorder: brief description, arguments for being a distinct disorder, arguments against being a distinct disorder".
The current article organization itself lends credence to the very disputed claim of a distinct disorder. As well, the current cause/treatment/prognosis sections talk less about these issues in relation to SCT, and instead, simply use them to contrast what is known about SCT with what is known about ADHD.
Any thoughts before I have at it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.136 (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Reorganization 

message: Yeah, this is something that's been allowed to continue for close to a year now. 
Just WHAT are these disputes supposed to be composed of?? WHAT are the factual inaccuracies which have been noted? How exactly is this article supposed to be improved, when whoever logged the complaint doesn't deem it FIT to reveal his or hers suggestions or concerns?
I'd like to improve the quality of this article, but I have NO IDEA where to begin...! So, whoever you are, contrarian guy, stand up and reveal yourself! WHAT do you want, anyway?!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.33.214 (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with you, I couldn't find out either what exactly is considered inaccurate or critized because none of these people wrote sth. on the talk page. My suggestion now would be to keep it for a month or so that people can comment on the issue. But then delete it if, nothing changes.--Trantüte (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Done. Trantüte (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and Factual accuracy dispute from December 2015? 

message: Hello all,
You're welcome from me adding the term Concentration Deficit Disorder to the page.
I am convinced that there is truth to the existence of this disorder based on my own experiences while growing up. The description of the disorder and what I remember is too similar to be a coincidence. I was diagnosed with ADD (predominately Inattentive) and Asperger's plus a mood disorder (major depression most likely).  It has always irked me that the diagnosis did not fully encompass what I experienced from a subjective perspective.
Although I am in no way a licensed medical professional, my intuition tells me this much. If CDD can be proven to exist, then there must also be some kind of connection between it and both autism spectrum disorders and schizoid personality disorder, hidden or otherwise. There could also be a link between CDD and PTSD. Finally, I suspect that my own condition was initially caused by a bad case of rotovirus, which in turn negatively impacted my body's microbiome.
TL;DR I believe the people who are making this page are on the right path. Keep researching!
NAStrahl (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concentration Deficit Disorder 

message: Hello again,
I have recently discerned and hypothesize that there is a connection between SCT/CDD and the processes described in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_theory_(psychology)
NAStrahl (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation Theory 

message: How much research has been done to distinguish SCT from depression? Specifically, how much evidence exists for the existence of SCT independently of a depression disorder, given the very clear overlap between the lethargy and anhedonia present in the latter? This would be useful to add to the article given that this disorder is ultimately speculative and not established at this time. 65.79.146.140 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depression and SCT 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved.  History6042 (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sluggish cognitive tempo →  – The article that introduced the name "cognitive disengagement syndrome" announced it as a consensus change in terminology of an international work group that convened in 2021. 
Since then, "cognitive disengagement syndrome" has been seeing adoption as a replacement in the literature. 130.126.255.178 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I fully support this change. The aspect of "tempo" connotes retardation and is not relevant to the phenotype, which is rather a disorder of attention and fatigue. "SCT" patients do not feel represented by the label, which limits its ability to make traction as a diagnosis. First sentence should read, "Cognitive disengagement syndrome or sluggish cognitive tempo..." and then default to the former term throughout. Dogeatgod888 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should be "Cognitive disengagement syndrome" first. 87.104.32.202 (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

text: While I agree with the name-change, I think the article starts out with a too strong statement about CDS being different from ADHD. Not everyone agrees with that. 87.104.32.202 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While not everyone agrees that CDS is different from ADHD, it has a separate set of symptoms from ADHD. Including that CDS is distinct from ADHD clearly highlights this which demonstrates the importance for the condition to be recognised. 61.68.158.49 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Psychology has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Autism has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 August 2023 

message: (my emphasis) Probably splitting hairs but... ICD-10 is not a diagnostic manual. It's a classification system used to generate statistical data. Are we instead referring to The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines here? Whilst both use the same codes; ICD-10's Chapter V only has glossary terms, it's the blue book that has the diagnostic criteria. I feel that  we are referring to the blue book, it's worth clarifying as such—even if that's just a wikilink to Medical classification#Derived classifications. Little pob (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICD-10 or blue book 

message: From the lede: "It has reached the threshold of evidence and recognition as a distinct syndrome."
The source here passes the verifiability check, and the sentence does not appear to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, however I do think it's on the precipice of WP:UNDUE to base such a claim off a single source. If we cannot find additional sources I would be in favor of rewording it to something along the lines of  "It has reached the threshold of evidence and recognition as a distinct syndrome according to the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry".  Tdmurlock (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging the user who made the edit: @Димитрий Улянов Иванов Tdmurlock (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks for writing. I disagree as it is an international scientific consensus which also reviews the established scientific literature findings attesting their conclusion; thus I don't think that violates WP:UNDUE, at least from my understanding (I may be wrong). In fact, it was concluded: "To experts in the field, it is evident that CDS has reached the threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome. Still, there is much more work to be done in further clarifying its nature, etiologies, demographic factors, relations to other psychopathologies, and linkages to specific domains of functional impairment. Many directions remain ripe for future study. Investigators are needed with interests and expertise spanning basic, clinical, and translational research to advance our understanding of CDS and to improve the lives of individuals with this unique syndrome."  Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It has reached the threshold of evidence and recognition as a distinct syndrome." - undue weight?