scholarly journals The Evolution of Approaches to Schizophrenia Diagnostics: from Kraepelin to ICD-11

10.17816/cp62 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-70
Author(s):  
Alexander B. Shmukler
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Promising Area ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
Research Domain

This article presents the evolution of views on schizophrenia diagnostics over the course of 150 years, beginning from the pre-Kraepelin period and ending with concepts developed in recent decades. Consideration is given to the merits and demerits of contemporary official classifications (DSM-5 and ICD-11) as well as to alternative approaches, particularly in relation to scientific research, and their prospects for development. Special attention is paid to the Research Domain Criteria Project (RDoC) of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Another promising area discussed in this paper relates to network analysis as a method for the investigation of psychotic disorders, particularly schizophrenia.

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.

Vergleich von kategorialer und dimensionaler Analyse bei Angststörungen

2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (05) ◽  
pp. 291-292
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Dimensionale Analyse ◽  
Research Domain

Zur Diagnose von Patienten mit Angststörungen existieren zwei unterschiedliche analytische Ansätze: ein kategorialer, der auf dem DSM-IV beruht und eine dimensionale Analyse, die auf den Research Domain Criteria (einer Initiative des National Institute of Mental Health) basiert. Es ist bisher nicht bekannt, ob die beiden Ansätze unterschiedliche oder ähnliche Informationen bezüglich der Diagnose von Personen mit Angststörungen liefern.

scholarly journals The role of RDoC in future classification of mental disorders

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-85 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Affective Behavior ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Computational Approaches ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Research Domain

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project constitutes a translational framework for psychopathology research, initiated by the National Institute of Mental Health in an attempt to provide new avenues for research to circumvent problems emerging from the use of symptom-based diagnostic categories in diagnosing disorders. The RDoC alternative is a focus on psychopathology based on dimensions simultaneously defined by observable behavior (including quantitative measures of cognitive or affective behavior) and neurobiological measures. Key features of the RDoC framework include an emphasis on functional dimensions that range from normal to abnormal, integration of multiple measures in study designs (which can foster computational approaches), and high priority on studies of neurodevelopment and environmental influences (and their interaction) that can contribute to advances in understanding the etiology of disorders throughout the lifespan. The paper highlights key implications for ways in which RDoC can contribute to future ideas about classification, as well as some of the considerations involved in translating basic behavioral and neuroscience data to psychopathology.

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.

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 Can psychopathology and neuroscience coexist in psychiatric classifications?

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-160 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Research ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Important Goal ◽  
Emil Kraepelin ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Late 18Th Century ◽  
Research Domain

A crisis of confidence was triggered by the disappointment that diagnostic validity, an important goal, was not achieved with the publication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project, which provides a framework for neuroscientific research, was initially conceptualized as an alternative to DSM. However, RDoC and DSM are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. From a historical perspective, this article argues that the debate opposing psychology and brain in psychiatric classification is not new and has an air of déjà vu. We go back to the first classifications based on a scientific taxonomy in the late 18th century with Boissier de Sauvages, which were supposed to describe diseases as they really existed in nature. Emil Kraepelin successfully associated psychopathology and brain research, prefiguring the interaction between DSM and RDoC. DSM symptoms remain valuable because they are the only data that are immediately and directly observable. Computational science is a promising instrument to interconnect psychopathological and neuroscientific data in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document