Research domain criteria from neuroconstructivism: A developmental view on mental disorders

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e1491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Campos ◽  
Carmen Nieto ◽  
María Núñez
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Research Domain

scholarly journals A knowledge network for a dynamic taxonomy of psychiatric disease

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-87 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Strategic Plan ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Knowledge Network ◽  
Psychiatric Disease ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Research Domain

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project was initiated by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in early 2009 as the implementation of Goal 1.4 of its just-issued strategic plan. In keeping with the NIMH mission, to "transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research," RDoC was explicitly conceived as a research-related initiative. The statement of the relevant goal in the strategic plan reads: "Develop, for research purposes, new ways of classifying mental disorders based on dimensions of observable behavior and neurobiological measures." Due to the novel approach that RDoC takes to conceptualizing and studying mental disorders, it has received widespread attention, well beyond the borders of the immediate research community. This review discusses the rationale for the experimental framework that RDoC has adopted, and its implications for the nosology of mental disorders in the future.

Research Domain Criteria and OCD

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal Kalanthroff ◽  
Gideon E. Anholt ◽  
Helen Blair Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Behavioral Measures ◽  
Research Domain

This chapter discusses the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project, an initiative of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) of the United States to develop for research purposes new ways of classifying mental disorders based on dimensions of observable behavior and neurobiological measures, and explores how the hallmark symptoms of OCD (obsessions, compulsions, and anxiety) can be mapped onto RDoC domains. Unlike current categorical diagnostic systems (e.g., DSM), RDoC seeks to integrate many levels of information (from genomics to self-report) to validate dimensions defined by neurobiology and behavioral measures that cut across current disorder categories. The chapter explores, for heuristic reasons, how the RDoC matrix might be used to elucidate the neurobehavioral domains of dysfunction that lead to the characteristic symptoms of OCD. It then selectively reviews the OCD literature from the perspective of the RDoC domains, aiming to guide future transdiagnostic studies to examine specific neurobehavioral domains across disorders.

scholarly journals Research Domain Criteria: cognitive systems, neural circuits, and dimensions of behavior

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Neural Circuits ◽  
Integrative Approach ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Research Perspective ◽  
Treatment And Prevention ◽  
Regulatory Systems ◽  
Positive Valence ◽  
Research Domain

Current diagnostic systems for mental disorders were established before the tools of neuroscience were available, and although they have improved the reliability of psychiatric classification, progress toward the discovery of disease etiologies and novel approaches to treatment and prevention may benefit from alternative conceptualizations of mental disorders. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative is the centerpiece of NIMH's effort to achieve its strategic goal of developing new methods to classify mental disorders for research purposes. The RDoC matrix provides a research framework that encourages investigators to reorient their research perspective by taking a dimensional approach to the study of the genetic, neural, and behavioral features of mental disorders, RDoCs integrative approach includes cognition along with social processes, arousal/regulatory systems, and negative and positive valence systems as the major domains, because these neurobehavioral systems have all evolved to serve the motivational and adaptive needs of the organism. With its focus on neural circuits informed by the growing evidence of the neurodevelopmental nature of many disorders and its capacity to capture the patterns of co-occurrence of behaviors and symptoms, the RDoC approach holds promise to advance our understanding of the nature of mental disorders.

scholarly journals Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Anna Clark ◽  
Bruce Cuthbert ◽  
Roberto Lewis-Fernández ◽  
William E. Narrow ◽  
Geoffrey M. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
The United States ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Prescribe Medication ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Research Domain

The diagnosis of mental disorder initially appears relatively straightforward: Patients present with symptoms or visible signs of illness; health professionals make diagnoses based primarily on these symptoms and signs; and they prescribe medication, psychotherapy, or both, accordingly. However, despite a dramatic expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their components and processes remains rudimentary. We provide histories and descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Two major diagnostic manuals—the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—provide classification systems relevant to public health, clinical diagnosis, service provision, and specific research applications, the former internationally and the latter primarily for the United States. In contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria provides a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorder. We identify four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. We discuss how the three systems’ approaches to these key issues correspond or diverge as a result of their different histories, purposes, and constituencies. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, they share the goal of reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder.

scholarly journals Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Toward a New Classification Framework for Research on Mental Disorders

2010 ◽  
Vol 167 (7) ◽  
pp. 748-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Insel ◽  
Bruce Cuthbert ◽  
Marjorie Garvey ◽  
Robert Heinssen ◽  
Daniel S. Pine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
New Classification ◽  
Classification Framework ◽  
Research Domain

Problems of psychopathologic systematics: alternative approaches and clinical practice requests

2020 ◽  
Vol LII (2) ◽  
pp. 20-28
Author(s):  
Мikhail L. Zobin ◽  
Natalia V. Ustinova
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Clinical Instability ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
Research Domain

The reliability and validity of traditional classifications give rise to justifiable criticism because of the conventionality of the boundaries between norm and pathology, fuzzy delimitation of disorders and their frequent co-occurrence, heterogeneity and clinical instability of symptoms within the diagnostic categories. There is little evidence that the majority of mental disorders are discrete entities. Discontent with the expert consensus classifications have led to attempts at a new quantitative and empirical systematization of psychopathology. Two alternative projects have been proposed: Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). The aim of the paper is to clarify the conceptual framework of RDoC and HiTOP, discuss their advantages and disadvantages in terms of the prospects for use in clinical practice.

Phenomena complexes as targets of explanation in psychopathology: The relational analysis of phenomena approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristopher Nielsen ◽  
Tony Ward
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Network Models ◽  
The Self ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Small Systems ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Explanatory Framework ◽  
Complementary Method ◽  
Relational Analysis ◽  
Research Domain

In this article, we briefly overview some current approaches to identifying targets of explanation in psychopathology. We suggest that DSM syndromes and symptom network models are too large to facilitate explanatory progress, while approaches couched in the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) are too tightly focused, thereby overlooking the self-maintaining structures and processes that constitute mental disorders. We then present the Relational Analysis of Phenomena (RAP) as a complementary method. The RAP is a metamethodological explanatory framework that prescribes the repeated targeting of “phenomena complexes” (PCs). PCs are small systems of clinical phenomena and their relations. We describe a process by which PCs are targeted, richly described, and then explained. The RAP’s explanatory focus is on the relationships between clinical phenomena, which should help to reveal the constitutional structure of mental disorders. This framework is designed to be useful for theoreticians, research teams planning multidisciplinary investigatory projects, and clinicians reflecting on their explanatory methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document