scholarly journals Research Domain Criteria: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Potential Alternatives for Future Psychiatric Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Ross ◽  
Russell L. Margolis
Keyword(s):  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Research Domain

Introduction: Psychiatric Research and Extraordinary Science

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
The Core ◽  
Research Programs ◽  
Research Domain

This chapter introduces the core thematic ideas of the present volume: that psychiatric research is in crisis, that it has entered a period of extraordinary science, and that a fully adequate response to the crisis should be responsive to the perspectives and interests of persons. We identify various sources of the crisis, drawing special attention to controversies concerning the role of the DSM in psychiatric research. And, we identify different strategies of response to the current crisis, including approaches that emphasize the importance of personal perspectives and the needs of the clinic and those that emphasize the important role of various scientific research programs. Further, we survey various developments (e.g., debates over fundamentals and a role for philosophical analysis, probing of the problems of the DSM framework, relaxation of standard forms of research practice, the introduction of the Research Domain Criteria initiative and other novel research programs) that are jointly suggestive of Thomas Kuhn’s characterization of periods of crisis that can arise in scientific research and of the “extraordinary science” that ensues. We suggest that this Kuhnian framework is useful for understanding the state of psychiatric research and it provides a framework for thinking about responses to the current crisis. We conclude with brief overviews of the contributions to the volume, each of which provides such a response.

scholarly journals The Research Domain Criteria: moving the goalposts to change the game

2014 ◽  
Vol 204 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne L. Doherty ◽  
Michael J. Owen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Research Domain

SummaryThere is increasing concern that a reliance on the descriptive, syndrome-based diagnostic criteria of ICD and DSM is impeding progress in research. The USA's major funder of psychiatric research, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), have stated their intention to encourage more research across diagnostic categories using a novel framework based on findings in neuroscience.

scholarly journals The Neurobiological Mechanisms of Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Chronic Stress

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 247054701770399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle A. Patriquin ◽  
Sanjay J. Mathew
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Generalized Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Generalized Anxiety ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Units Of Analysis ◽  
Research Domain

Two classification systems are now at the forefront of clinical psychiatric research: (1) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition and (2) the National Institutes of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria. Herein, we propose that these two classification systems are complementary rather than mutually exclusive, and when combined provide important information for understanding aspects of the pathophysiology related to Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). The neurobiological literature for GAD and one relevant research domain criteria component, sustained threat, are reviewed from multiple units of analysis (genetic, neuroimaging, neuroendocrine, and psychophysiological). It is hypothesized that generating a comprehensive, biologically based understanding of the relationship between GAD, sustained threat, and the measureable units of analysis will provide information critical to design the most effective treatments.

Biocognitive Classification of Antisocial Individuals Without Explanatory Reductionism

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 957-972
Author(s):  
Marko Jurjako ◽  
Luca Malatesti ◽  
Inti A. Brazil
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Antisocial Personality ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Psychiatric Conditions ◽  
Research Domain ◽  
Therapeutic Responses ◽  
Improve Health

Effective and specifically targeted social and therapeutic responses for antisocial personality disorders and psychopathy are scarce. Some authors maintain that this scarcity should be overcome by revising current syndrome-based classifications of these conditions and devising better biocognitive classifications of antisocial individuals. The inspiration for the latter classifications has been embedded in the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) approach. RDoC-type approaches to psychiatric research aim at transforming diagnosis, provide valid measures of disorders, aid clinical practice, and improve health outcomes by integrating the data on the genetic, neural, cognitive, and affective systems underlying psychiatric conditions. In the first part of the article, we discuss the benefits of such approaches compared with the dominant syndrome-based approaches and review recent attempts at building biocognitive classifications of antisocial individuals. Other researchers, however, have objected that biocognitive approaches in psychiatry are committed to an untenable form of explanatory reductionism. Explanatory reductionism is the view that psychological disorders can be exclusively categorized and explained in terms of their biological causes. In the second part of the article, we argue that RDoC-like approaches need not be associated with explanatory reductionism. Moreover, we argue how this is the case for a specific biocognitive approach to classifying antisocial individuals.

Challenges of Fear Conditioning Research in the Age of RDoC

2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina B. Lonsdorf ◽  
Jan Richter
Keyword(s):  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Major Focus ◽  
The Future ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Methodological Considerations ◽  
Research Domain

Abstract. As the criticism of the definition of the phenotype (i.e., clinical diagnosis) represents the major focus of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, it is somewhat surprising that discussions have not yet focused more on specific conceptual and procedural considerations of the suggested RDoC constructs, sub-constructs, and associated paradigms. We argue that we need more precise thinking as well as a conceptual and methodological discussion of RDoC domains and constructs, their interrelationships as well as their experimental operationalization and nomenclature. The present work is intended to start such a debate using fear conditioning as an example. Thereby, we aim to provide thought-provoking impulses on the role of fear conditioning in the age of RDoC as well as conceptual and methodological considerations and suggestions to guide RDoC-based fear conditioning research in the future.

The Psychophysiology of Anxiety and Mood Disorders

2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Lang ◽  
Lisa M. McTeague ◽  
Margaret M. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Brain Function ◽  
Physiological Reactivity ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Psychophysiological Reactivity ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
New Research ◽  
Research Domain

Abstract. Several decades of research are reviewed, assessing patterns of psychophysiological reactivity in anxiety patients responding to a fear/threat imagery challenge. Findings show substantive differences in these measures within principal diagnostic categories, questioning the reliability and categorical specificity of current diagnostic systems. Following a new research framework (US National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], Research Domain Criteria [RDoC]; Cuthbert & Insel, 2013 ), dimensional patterns of physiological reactivity are explored in a large sample of anxiety and mood disorder patients. Patients’ responses (e.g., startle reflex, heart rate) during fear/threat imagery varied significantly with higher questionnaire measured “negative affect,” stress history, and overall life dysfunction – bio-marking disorder groups, independent of Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSM). The review concludes with a description of new research, currently underway, exploring brain function indices (structure activation, circuit connectivity) as potential biological classifiers (collectively with the reflex physiology) of anxiety and mood pathology.

Trauma and mood disorders: comorbidity with post-traumatic stress disorder or overlapping symptoms?

2016 ◽  
Vol Ano 6 ◽  
pp. 38-42
Author(s):  
Andrea Feijó Mello ◽  
Euthymia B. Almeida Prado
Keyword(s):  
Mood Disorders ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ◽  
Traumatic Stress ◽  
Stress Disorder ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Post Traumatic ◽  
Research Domain

O presente artigo discorre sobre a comorbidade entre transtorno bipolar (TB) e transtorno de estresse póstraumático (TEPT) e questiona sobre certos casos serem melhor avaliados à luz das novas teorias do Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), principalmente aqueles quadros de TEPT com sintomas disfóricos que podem ser classificados como TB, apesar de não preencherem critérios para tal. Nesse caso, questiona-se a comorbidade e propõe-se um aprofundamento da fisiopatologia dessa sintomatologia que está sobreposta. Clinicamente, esse olhar poderá facilitar o manejo farmacológico de pacientes graves com histórico de trauma.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document