RECENT brushfires have emerged from the decades-old controversy regarding "caseness" in community-based epidemiological studies of psychiatric disorders.^1-3 Three studies^4-6 in this issue of the ARCHIVES speak to this controversy not so much through the opinions of the investigators but rather through a fresh look at the data from 2 large longitudinal surveys. As noted by Regier et al,¹ the research field of psychiatric epidemiology has been most productive during the past 20 years, due in large part to 2 surveys—the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) Study⁷ and the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS).⁸ Yet prior to that time, major community-based studies were fielded, the best now being the Stirling County Study⁹ and the Midtown Manhattan Study.¹⁰ Unlike earlier studies, the ECA Study and NCS were fielded in large part to bring community-based studies into concert with clinical studies primarily through applying DSM-III¹¹ (and its successors') criteria to community samples. Unfortunately, the basic conflict between community and clinical evaluation—whether the reported symptoms by community residents approximate a recognized clinical syndrome and whether the symptoms are "clinically significant"—has not been resolved.