A New Classification of the Delusional Misidentification Syndromes

Abstract

In recent years, a great number of very different and in part contradictory terminologies and classifications of delusional misidentification syndromes (DMS) have been published. In various case reports, several authors have also made contradictory comments on questions concerning classification, etiology and assignment to a possible entity of DMS. Further development and extension of the classifications proposed during recent years did not help to eliminate discrepancies and contradictions. The classification presented here has not shown any inconsistencies so far and it allows the classification of any DMS that has been examined recently.

Delusional Misidentification Syndromes and Dementia

“…In various case reports, several authors have also made contradictory comments on questions concerning classification, etiology, and assignment to a possible entity of DMS. 18 Early explanations of the delusion were predominately psychodynamic interpretations, but results of structural and neuroimaging studies of the variegated misidentification syndromes provide support for an organic etiology. 19…”

Delusional Misidentification Syndrome: Why Such Nosologic Challenge Remains Intractable

“…At a moment when the low reliability and insuffi ciency of the extension of current defi nitions and classifi cations of DMS have gained visibility in the discussion [17,19] , and are even considered reasons for rendering them useless [19] , we believe that the aspects mentioned above, referring to linguistic limitations, along with the self-explanatory tendency of the human mental apparatus, are arguments that speak against trying to decide this matter purely on a conceptual or nosographic level. The same diffi culty is found in other phenomena of psychopathology (including delusions in general), but we see it as inherent to the way concepts and defi nitions of all kinds are used.…”

“…Although such attempts aim at improving reliability, they are not usually built upon an objective assessment of reliability of previous defi nitions and classifi cations, nor do they prove valuable themselves on such grounds [5,17] . Even when standardization is supposedly corroborated [19] , the methods employed are not explicitly stated and no replication has since been carried out. The same holds true in regard to attempts at improving the correspondence of concepts with the clinical extension of the phenomenon, where Mojtabai's work [13] seems to be unique in showing how little inclusive our current classifi cations are.…”