Why Psychiatric Research Must Abandon Traditional Diagnostic Classification and Adopt a Fully Dimensional Scope: Two Solutions to a Persistent Problem.

Michael P. Hengartner,Sandrine N. Lehmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00101

IF: 4.7

2017-01-01

Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract:OPINION article Front. Psychiatry, 07 June 2017Sec. Psychopathology Volume 8 - 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00101

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Beyond the boundaries: Transitioning from categorical to dimensional paradigms in mental health diagnostics

Masaru Tanaka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/197425

Abstract:Mental health diagnostics is undergoing a transformation, with a shift away from traditional categorical systems like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11), and toward innovative frameworks like the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). These emerging models prioritize dimensional and biobehavioral approaches in order to overcome limitations such as oversimplification, comorbidity and heterogeneity. This editorial explores the challenges of implementing these paradigms, such as the need for empirical validation, interdisciplinary collaboration and clinician training. It highlights the importance of advanced tools, biomarkers and technological integration to improve precision in diagnosis and treatment. Future research directions include creating reliable dimensional assessment methods, conducting longitudinal studies and fostering interdisciplinary networks. By bridging traditional and emerging frameworks, the field can progress toward personalized, biologically informed mental health treatment. This transition necessitates collaboration among researchers, clinicians and policymakers to improve diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcomes for those affected by mental health disorders.
A hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology can transform mental health research

Christopher C Conway, Miriam K Forbes, Kelsie T Forbush, Eiko I Fried, Michael N Hallquist, Roman Kotov, Stephanie N Mullins-Sweatt, Alexander J Shackman, Andrew E Skodol, Susan C South, Matthew Sunderland, Monika A Waszczuk, David H Zald, Mohammad H Afzali, Marina A Bornovalova, Natacha Carragher, Anna R Docherty, Katherine G Jonas, Robert F Krueger, Praveetha Patalay, Aaron L Pincus, Jennifer L Tackett, Ulrich Reininghaus, Irwin D Waldman, Aidan GC Wright, Johannes Zimmermann, Bo Bach, R Michael Bagby, Michael Chmielewski, David C Cicero, Lee Anna Clark, Tim Dalgleish, Colin G DeYoung, Christopher J Hopwood, Masha Y Ivanova, Robert D Latzman, Christopher J Patrick, Camilo J Ruggero, Douglas B Samuel, David Watson, Nicholas R Eaton

2019-05-01

Abstract:For more than a century, research on psychopathology has focused on categorical diagnoses. Although this work has produced major discoveries, growing evidence points to the superiority of a dimensional approach to the science of mental illness. Here we outline one such dimensional system—the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP)—that is based on empirical patterns of co-occurrence among psychological symptoms. We highlight key ways in which this framework can advance mental-health research, and we provide some heuristics for using HiTOP to test theories of psychopathology. We then review emerging evidence that supports the value of a hierarchical, dimensional model of mental illness across diverse research areas in psychological science. These new data suggest that the HiTOP system has the potential to accelerate and improve research on mental-health problems as well as …
Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses

Stefan Leucht,Jim van Os,Markus Jäger,John M. Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2652

2024-09-11

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:Importance Psychiatry mainly deals with conditions that are mediated by brain function but are not directly attributable to specific brain abnormalities. Given the lack of concrete biological markers, such as laboratory tests or imaging results, the development of diagnostic systems is difficult. Observations This narrative review evaluated 9 diagnostic approaches. The validity of the DSM and the International Classification of Disorders ( ICD ) is limited. The Research Domain Criteria is a research framework, not a diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the quantitatively derived, dimensional Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is questionable. The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual Version 2 follows psychoanalytic theory and focuses on personality. Unlike the personality assessments in ICD-11 or DSM-5 ’s alternative model, based on pathological extremes of the big 5 traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism), it lacks foundation in empirical evidence. Network analytic approaches are intriguing, but their complexity makes them difficult to implement. Staging would be easier if individually predictive biological markers were available. The problem with all these new approaches is that they abstract patient experiences into higher-order constructs, potentially obscuring individual symptoms so much that they no longer reflect patients’ actual problems. Conclusions and Relevance ICD and DSM diagnoses can be questioned, but the reality of psychopathological symptoms, such as hallucinations, depression, anxiety, compulsions, and the suffering stemming from them, cannot. Therefore, it may be advisable to primarily describe patients according to the psychopathological symptoms they present, and any resulting personal syndromes, embedded in a framework of contextual clinical characterization including personality assessment and staging. The DSM and ICD are necessary for reimbursement, but they should be simplified and merged. A primarily psychopathological symptoms–based, clinical characterization approach would be multidimensional and clinically useful, because it would lead to problem-oriented treatment and support transdiagnostic research. It should be based on a universally used instrument to assess psychopathology and structured clinical characterization.

psychiatry
Do We Need a Novel Framework for Classifying Psychopathology? A Discussion Paper

Winfried Rief,Stefan G Hofmann,Max Berg,Miriam K Forbes,Diego A Pizzagalli,Johannes Zimmermann,Eiko Fried,Geoffrey M Reed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.11699

2023-12-22

Abstract:Introduction: The ICD-11 and DSM-5 are the leading systems for the classification of mental disorders, and their relevance for clinical work and research, as well as their impact for policy making and legal questions, has increased considerably. In recent years, other frameworks have been proposed to supplement or even replace the ICD and the DSM, raising many questions regarding clinical utility, scientific relevance, and, at the core, how best to conceptualize mental disorders. Method: As examples of the new approaches that have emerged, here we introduce the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), systems and network approaches, process-based approaches, as well as a new approach to the classification of personality disorders. Results and discussion: We highlight main distinctions between these classification frameworks, largely related to different priorities and goals, and discuss areas of overlap and potential compatibility. Synergies among these systems may provide promising new avenues for research and clinical practice.
Reimagining psychoses: an agnostic approach to diagnosis.

Matcheri S Keshavan,Brett A Clementz,Godfrey D Pearlson,John A Sweeney,Carol A Tamminga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2013.02.022

IF: 4.662

2013-01-01

Schizophrenia Research

Abstract:Objectives: Current approaches to defining and classifying psychotic disorders are compromised by substantive heterogeneity within, blurred boundaries between, as well as overlaps across the various disorders in outcome, treatment response, emerging evidence regarding pathophysiology and presumed etiology. Methods: We herein review the evolution, current status and the constraints posed by classic symptom-based diagnostic approaches. We compare the continuing constructs that underlie the current classification of psychoses, and contrast those to evolving new thinking in other areas of medicine. Results: An important limitation in current psychiatric nosology may stem from the fact that symptom-based diagnoses do not "carve nature at its joints"; while symptom-based classifications have improved our reliability, they may lack validity. Next steps in developing a more valid scientific nosology for psychoses include a) agnostic deconstruction of disease dimensions, identifying disease markers and endophenotypes; b) mapping such markers across translational domains from behaviors to molecules, c) reclustering cross-cutting bio-behavioral data using modern phenotypic and biometric approaches, and finally d) validating such entities using etiopathology, outcome and treatment-response measures. Conclusions: The proposed steps of deconstruction and "bottom-up" disease definition, as elsewhere in medicine, may well provide a better foundation for developing a nosology for psychotic disorders that may have better utility in predicting outcome, treatment response and etiology, and identifying novel treatment approaches. (C) 2013 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.
Rethinking the Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: Data-Driven Psychological Dimensions, Not Categories, as a Framework for Mental-Health Research, Treatment, and Training

Christopher C. Conway,Robert F. Krueger,David C. Cicero,Colin G. DeYoung,Nicholas R. Eaton,Miriam K. Forbes,Michael N. Hallquist,Roman Kotov,Robert D. Latzman,Camilo J. Ruggero,Leonard J. Simms,Irwin D. Waldman,Monika A. Waszczuk,David Watson,Thomas A. Widiger,Aidan G. C. Wright,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721421990353

IF: 7.867

2021-04-01

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Abstract:Generations of psychologists have been taught that mental disorder can be carved into discrete categories, each qualitatively different from the others and from normality. This model is now outdated. A preponderance of evidence indicates that (a) individual differences in mental health (health vs. illness) are a matter of degree, not kind, and (b) broad mental-health conditions (e.g., internalizing) account for the tendency of narrower ones (e.g., depression, social anxiety, panic) to co-occur. With these observations in mind, we discuss an alternative diagnostic system, called the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), that describes the broad and specific components of mental disorder. It deconstructs traditional diagnostic categories, such as those listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and recasts them in terms of profiles of dimensions. Recent findings support the utility of this approach for mental-health research and intervention efforts. HiTOP has the potential to put mental-health research, training, and treatment on a much sounder scientific footing.

psychology, multidisciplinary
How to construct neuroscience-informed psychiatric classification? Towards nomothetic networks psychiatry

Drozdstoy Stoyanov,Michael HJ Maes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v11.i1.1

2021-01-19

World Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract:Psychiatry remains in a permanent state of crisis, which fragmented psychiatry from the field of medicine. The crisis in psychiatry is evidenced by the many different competing approaches to psychiatric illness including psychodynamic, biological, molecular, pan-omics, precision, cognitive and phenomenological psychiatry, folk psychology, mind-brain dualism, descriptive psychopathology, and postpsychiatry. The current "gold standard" Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders/International Classification of Diseases taxonomies of mood disorders and schizophrenia are unreliable and preclude to employ a deductive reasoning approach. Therefore, it is not surprising that mood disorders and schizophrenia research was unable to revise the conventional classifications and did not provide more adequate therapeutic approaches. The aim of this paper is to explain the new nomothetic network psychiatry (NNP) approach, which uses machine learning methods to build data-driven causal models of mental illness by assembling risk-resilience, adverse outcome pathways (AOP), cognitome, brainome, staging, symptomatome, and phenomenome latent scores in a causal model. The latter may be trained, tested and validated with Partial Least Squares analysis. This approach not only allows to compute pathway-phenotypes or biosignatures, but also to construct reliable and replicable nomothetic networks, which are, therefore, generalizable as disease models. After integrating the validated feature vectors into a well-fitting nomothetic network, clustering analysis may be applied on the latent variable scores of the R/R, AOP, cognitome, brainome, and phenome latent vectors. This pattern recognition method may expose new (transdiagnostic) classes of patients which if cross-validated in independent samples may constitute new (transdiagnostic) nosological categories.

psychiatry
Synthesizing Dimensional and Categorical Approaches to Personality Disorders: Refining the Research Agenda for Dsm-V Axis Ii

Robert F. Krueger,Andrew E. Skodol,W. John Livesley,Patrick E. Shrout,Yueqin Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.212

2007-01-01

International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

Abstract:Personality disorder researchers have long considered the utility of dimensional approaches to diagnosis, signaling the need to consider a dimensional approach for personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V). Nevertheless, a dimensional approach to personality disorders in DSM-V is more likely to succeed if it represents an orderly and logical progression from the categorical system in DSM-IV. With these considerations and opportunities in mind, the authors sought to delineate ways of synthesizing categorical and dimensional approaches to personality disorders that could inform the construction of DSM-V. This discussion resulted in (1) the idea of having a set of core descriptive elements of personality for DSM-V, (2) an approach to rating those elements for specific patients, (3) a way of combining those elements into personality disorder prototypes, and (4) a revised conception of personality disorder as a construct separate from personality traits. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses: A Narrative Review

Stefan Leucht,Jim van Os,Markus Jäger,John M Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2652

2024-11-01

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:Importance: Psychiatry mainly deals with conditions that are mediated by brain function but are not directly attributable to specific brain abnormalities. Given the lack of concrete biological markers, such as laboratory tests or imaging results, the development of diagnostic systems is difficult. Observations: This narrative review evaluated 9 diagnostic approaches. The validity of the DSM and the International Classification of Disorders (ICD) is limited. The Research Domain Criteria is a research framework, not a diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the quantitatively derived, dimensional Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology is questionable. The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual Version 2 follows psychoanalytic theory and focuses on personality. Unlike the personality assessments in ICD-11 or DSM-5's alternative model, based on pathological extremes of the big 5 traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism), it lacks foundation in empirical evidence. Network analytic approaches are intriguing, but their complexity makes them difficult to implement. Staging would be easier if individually predictive biological markers were available. The problem with all these new approaches is that they abstract patient experiences into higher-order constructs, potentially obscuring individual symptoms so much that they no longer reflect patients' actual problems. Conclusions and relevance: ICD and DSM diagnoses can be questioned, but the reality of psychopathological symptoms, such as hallucinations, depression, anxiety, compulsions, and the suffering stemming from them, cannot. Therefore, it may be advisable to primarily describe patients according to the psychopathological symptoms they present, and any resulting personal syndromes, embedded in a framework of contextual clinical characterization including personality assessment and staging. The DSM and ICD are necessary for reimbursement, but they should be simplified and merged. A primarily psychopathological symptoms-based, clinical characterization approach would be multidimensional and clinically useful, because it would lead to problem-oriented treatment and support transdiagnostic research. It should be based on a universally used instrument to assess psychopathology and structured clinical characterization.
The Dimensional Conceptualization of Personality Disorders: Personality Organization, Personality Functioning, and Personality Disorders

Young Ran Kim,Young-ho Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2024.38.2.105

2024-04-10

Journal of Personality Disorders

Abstract:Over the past several decades, significant criticism of the categorical classification system for personality disorders has highlighted the need to transition to a dimensional classification system. This study reviewed key issues involved in the potential conversion of the diagnostic system of personality disorders from a categorical to a dimensional model. The result suggests that Kernberg's concept of personality organization can be used to indicate the overall severity of personality pathology.

psychiatry
Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review

Paolo Fusar-Poli,Marco Solmi,Natascia Brondino,Cathy Davies,Chungil Chae,Pierluigi Politi,Stefan Borgwardt,Stephen M Lawrie,Josef Parnas,Philip McGuire,Paolo Fusar‐Poli,Stephen M. Lawrie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20631

2019-05-06

World Psychiatry

Abstract:The usefulness of current psychiatric classification, which is based on ICD/DSM categorical diagnoses, remains questionable. A promising alternative has been put forward as the "transdiagnostic" approach. This is expected to cut across existing categorical diagnoses and go beyond them, to improve the way we classify and treat mental disorders. This systematic review explores whether self‐defining transdiagnostic research meets such high expectations. A multi‐step Web of Science literature search was performed according to an a priori protocol, to identify all studies that used the word "transdiagnostic" in their title, up to May 5, 2018. Empirical variables which indexed core characteristics were extracted, complemented by a bibliometric and conceptual analysis. A total of 111 studies were included. Most studies were investigating interventions, followed by cognition and psychological processes, and neuroscientific topics. Their samples ranged from 15 to 91,199 (median 148) participants, with a mean age from 10 to more than 60 (median 33) years. There were several methodological inconsistencies relating to the definition of the gold standard (DSM/ICD diagnoses), of the outcome measures and of the transdiagnostic approach. The quality of the studies was generally low and only a few findings were externally replicated. The majority of studies tested transdiagnostic features cutting across different diagnoses, and only a few tested new classification systems beyond the existing diagnoses. About one fifth of the studies were not transdiagnostic at all, because they investigated symptoms and not disorders, a single disorder, or because there was no diagnostic information. The bibliometric analysis revealed that transdiagnostic research largely restricted its focus to anxiety and depressive disorders. The conceptual analysis showed that transdiagnostic research is grounded more on rediscoveries than on true innovations, and that it is affected by some conceptual biases. To date, transdiagnostic approaches have not delivered a credible paradigm shift that can impact classification and clinical care. Practical "TRANSD"iagnostic recommendations are proposed here to guide future research in this field.

psychiatry
Personality disorders, fact or fiction? The dark future of their diagnosis

Vicente Caballo,Andrea López,Isabel Salazar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51668/bp.8324101n

2024-04-05

Behavioral Psychology/Psicología Conductual

Abstract:The categorical diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs) has been criticized for various reasons, among which are overlapping of symptoms between different disorders, their high comorbidity, and the dichotomous nature of their diagnosis. These criticisms have led to the development of a dimensional approach in the latest versions of the classification systems, DSM-5/DSM-5-TR and ICD-11, considering two substantial aspects for its new diagnosis: personality functioning, and a series of pathological features. Despite the large amount of literature that has been published since the beginning of this century on this dimensional proposal, it is not clear, to date, that this approach enhances clinical utility. The vague, abstract, and inoperative exposition of what constitutes personality functioning and the complex and forced designation of major and minor traits (facets) in the DSM-5/DSM-5-TR, and only major and optional traits in the ICD-11, complicate, in an unusual way, the dimensional diagnosis of PDs. This paper discusses all of these issues in an attempt to shed some light on the potentially dark future of the current PDs panorama.

psychology, clinical
Hierarchical models of psychopathology: empirical support, implications, and remaining issues

Benjamin B. Lahey,Tyler M. Moore,Antonia N. Kaczkurkin,David H. Zald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20824

2021-01-12

World Psychiatry

Abstract:<p>There is an ongoing revolution in psychology and psychiatry that will likely change how we conceptualize, study and treat psychological problems. Many theorists now support viewing psychopathology as consisting of continuous dimensions rather than discrete diagnostic categories. Indeed, recent papers have proposed comprehensive taxonomies of psychopathology dimensions to replace the DSM and ICD taxonomies of categories. The proposed dimensional taxonomies, which portray psychopathology as hierarchically organized correlated dimensions, are now well supported at phenotypic levels. Multiple studies show that both a general factor of psychopathology at the top of the hierarchy and specific factors at lower levels predict different functional outcomes. Our analyses of data on a large representative sample of child and adolescent twins suggested the causal hypothesis that phenotypic correlations among dimensions of psychopathology are the result of many familial influences being pleiotropic. That is, most genetic variants and shared environmental factors are hypothesized to non‐specifically influence risk for multiple rather than individual dimensions of psychopathology. In contrast, person‐specific experiences tend to be related to individual dimensions. This hierarchical causal hypothesis has been supported by both large‐scale family and molecular genetic studies. Current research focuses on three issues. First, the field has not settled on a preferred statistical model for studying the hierarchy of causes and phenotypes. Second, in spite of encouraging progress, the neurobiological correlates of the hierarchy of dimensions of psychopathology are only partially described. Third, although there are potentially important clinical implications of the hierarchical model, insufficient research has been conducted to date to recommend evidence‐based clinical practices.</p>

psychiatry
The DSM-ICD diagnostic approach as an essential bridge between the patient and the "big data"

G B Mitropoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22365/jpsych.2018.293.249

Psychiatriki

Abstract:The use of diagnostic manuals in psychiatry is generally necessitated by the lack of tests that would corroborate psychiatric diagnosis. Criticism towards the today prevailing DSM-ICD diagnosis traditionally regards among others such problems as hyponarrativity, biologism, "death of phenomenology", and a questionably valid over-fragmentation of diagnosis. Lately, and especially after the appearance of the 5th edition of DSM (2013), criticism focuses at such issues as lack of validity, having failed to adopt a dimensional model, not adequately relying on genetics and neurobiology, and impeding, rather than facilitating, research into the etiology of mental disorders, the DSM becoming an "epistemic prison". The former problems seem to derive from the fact that the operationalist criteria are often uncritically adopted as the ultimate authority in diagnosis, instead of being merely guides, as intended originally and explicitely; the latter problems have been made more evident since the emergence of the American RDoC research initiative, which not only points to an alternative, more valid classification of mental disorders, but also aspires to signal a move of psychiatry tοwards precision medicine, having as its main dogma that mental disorders are disorders of brain circuits, which are expressed as complex syndromes. In this paper, the historical and epistemological context of the emergence of DSM is examined; its achievement in terms of diagnostic reliability as well as clinical utility is not negligible, especially taken into consideration the climate of virtual diagnostic arbitrariness which characterized the (American) psychiatry before 1980, with obvious consequences for the authority of the specialty. Then, the potential of the new era of genetics, neurobiology and analysis of the "big data" for generating a novel approach to psychiatric diagnosis and classification is put into consideration, while it remains unknown in what way the findings of RDoC could lead and be translated into a new classification system. Moreover, the particularity of the psychiatric object, the clinical significance of the categorical approach to diagnosis, as well as the need for a "irreducible psychological level of explanation" are discussed. In our view, today, the DSM-ICD diagnosis lies between two different and potentially opposing demands and tendencies: on the one hand, the demand for the individual, subjective and phenomenological particularity of the mentally ill to be taken into consideration (a demand that sometimes underestimates the need for clinical communication); on the other hand, the (largely future) vision for more and more analysis of biological data in the name of a yet to be clarified personalized therapy (the very notion of diagnosis becoming potentially redundant). Finally, considering the particularity of the psychiatric object, we conclude that matthe DSM-ICD approach, with its categorical diagnoses and its descriptive operational criteria, despite its inherent imperfections and inadequacies, continues to have a place in psychiatry as an essential bridge/interface between clinic and research data, as a common clinical language, and as an epistemic hub; and that prerequisites for diagnostic validity should be sought both in the cells of RDoC and in those theoretical approaches which examine human subjectivity as such, included phenomenology and psychoanalysis.
Classification, selfhood, and culture in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual

Neil Krishan Aggarwal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12408

2023-09-23

Ethos

Abstract:For decades, social scientists have critiqued the construction of knowledge in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). However, they have not conducted research with an alternate classification from psychoanalytic and psychodynamic practitioners known as the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM), which is beginning to disseminate globally. This article analyzes cultural assumptions underpinning the classification rationale, concept of the self, and relationship between culture and mental disorders through close readings of DSM‐5‐TR (2022) and PDM‐2 (2017). It shows that DSM‐5‐TR's notion of scientific evidence is informed by an emphasis on biological research in psychiatry, which PDM‐2 views as mostly irrelevant to clinical work. Instead, PDM‐2 claims to speak authoritatively for the inner experiences of patients and clinicians in the therapeutic relationship. Both classifications share a concept of an ideal self that is individualistic, consistent across time, able to narrate rather than just feel emotions, and in control of cognition, emotion, and relationships. Whereas DSM‐5‐TR views the culture concept as a lens to interpret the patient–clinician encounter, PDM‐2 uses the culture concept inconsistently. I situate these findings within extant anthropological research and propose new directions to examine how both classifications are used in local contexts.

anthropology,psychology, multidisciplinary
High Throughput Phenotyping for Dimensional Psychopathology in Electronic Health Records.

Thomas H McCoy,Sheng Yu,Kamber L Hart,Victor M Castro,Hannah E Brown,James N Rosenquist,Alysa E Doyle,Pieter J Vuijk,Tianxi Cai,Roy H Perlis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.01.011

IF: 12.81

2018-01-01

Biological Psychiatry

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Relying on diagnostic categories of neuropsychiatric illness obscures the complexity of these disorders. Capturing multiple dimensional measures of neuropathology could facilitate the clinical and neurobiological investigation of cognitive and behavioral phenotypes. METHODS:We developed a natural language processing-based approach to extract five symptom dimensions, based on the National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria definitions, from narrative clinical notes. Estimates of Research Domain Criteria loading were derived from a cohort of 3619 individuals with 4623 hospital admissions. We applied this tool to a large corpus of psychiatric inpatient admission and discharge notes (2010-2015), and using the same cohort we examined face validity, predictive validity, and convergent validity with gold standard annotations. RESULTS:In mixed-effect models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical features, greater negative and positive symptom domains were associated with a shorter length of stay (β = -.88, p = .001 and β = -1.22, p < .001, respectively), while greater social and arousal domain scores were associated with a longer length of stay (β = .93, p < .001 and β = .81, p = .007, respectively). In fully adjusted Cox regression models, a greater positive domain score at discharge was also associated with a significant increase in readmission risk (hazard ratio = 1.22, p < .001). Positive and negative valence domains were correlated with expert annotation (by analysis of variance [df = 3], R2 = .13 and .19, respectively). Likewise, in a subset of patients, neurocognitive testing was correlated with cognitive performance scores (p < .008 for three of six measures). CONCLUSIONS:This shows that natural language processing can be used to efficiently and transparently score clinical notes in terms of cognitive and psychopathologic domains.
Reconstructing Psychopathology: A Data-Driven Reorganization of the Symptoms in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Miriam K. Forbes,Andrew Baillie,Philip J. Batterham,Alison Calear,Roman Kotov,Robert F. Krueger,Kristian E. Markon,Louise Mewton,Elizabeth Pellicano,Matthew Roberts,Craig Rodriguez-Seijas,Matthew Sunderland,David Watson,Ashley L. Watts,Aidan G. C. Wright,Lee Anna Clark

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026241268345

2024-10-18

Clinical Psychological Science

Abstract:Clinical Psychological Science, Ahead of Print. In this study, we reduced the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) to its constituent symptoms and reorganized them based on patterns of covariation in individuals' (N = 14,762) self-reported experiences of the symptoms to form an empirically derived hierarchical framework of clinical phenomena. Specifically, we used the points of agreement among hierarchical principal components analyses and hierarchical clustering as well as between the randomly split primary (n = 11,762) and hold-out (n = 3,000) samples to identify the robust constructs that emerged to form a hierarchy ranging from symptoms and syndromes up to very broad superspectra of psychopathology. The resulting model had noteworthy convergence with the upper levels of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) framework and substantially expands on HiTOP's current coverage of dissociative, elimination, sleep–wake, trauma-related, neurodevelopmental, and neurocognitive disorder symptoms. We also mapped some exemplar DSM-5 disorders onto our hierarchy; some formed coherent syndromes, whereas others were notably heterogeneous.

psychiatry,psychology, clinical
The Problem No One is Talking About: Forensic Evaluators' Lack of Familiarity with Dimensional Approaches to Personality and Psychopathology

Abby L. Mulay,Emily D. Gottfried,Jared R. Ruchensky,Tiffany Russell,Adam P. Natoli,Christopher J. Hopwood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2420172

2024-11-02

Journal of Personality Assessment

Abstract:Historically, forensic evaluators have relied heavily upon various editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders when rendering psycholegal opinions. The field of mental health is increasing moving toward dimensional models of personality and psychopathology in lieu of traditional DSM categorical models, though the domains of forensic psychology and psychiatry have been slow to make this transition. The current study therefore sought to examine forensic evaluators' familiarity with dimensional approaches to personality and psychopathology, namely the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists ( N = 54) completed an online survey designed to assess their familiarity with these models, as well as to determine if forensics practitioners are using these models in clinical practice. Participants endorsed greater familiarity with the AMPD, with a large majority of participants indicating they were unfamiliar with the HiTOP model. Few participants endorsed using these models in their clinical forensic practice. Implications for making the transition to dimensional models within forensic evaluation are discussed, as are paths forward for future research.

psychology, clinical, social
Fractures in the framework: limitations of classification systems in psychiatry

Munira Kapadia,Maherra Desai,Rajesh Parikh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31887/dcns.2020.22.1/rparikh

2020-03-31

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract:This article examines the limitations of existing classification systems from the historical, cultural, political, and legal perspectives. It covers the evolution of classification systems with particular emphasis on the DSM and ICD systems. While pointing out the inherent Western bias in these systems, it highlights the potential of misuse of these systems to subserve other agendas. It raises concerns about the reliability, validity, comorbidity, and heterogeneity within diagnostic categories of contemporary classification systems. Finally, it postulates future directions in alternative methods of diagnosis and classification factoring in advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, genetic testing, and brain imaging. In conclusion, it emphasizes the need to go beyond the limitations inherent in classifications systems to provide more relevant diagnoses and effective treatments..

neurosciences
Searching for diagnoses and subgroups: a suggestion for criteria

Tilman Steinert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1292917

IF: 4.7

2024-01-08

Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract:New subgroups of psychiatric disorders are often claimed. In contrast, classification systems have repeatedly had to abandon established subgroups such as paranoid vs. disorganised and catatonic schizophrenia due to lack of empirical evidence. Four criteria are proposed that should be met to claim valid subgroups: 1. distinct distribution of the defining characteristic between groups; 2. significant differences in variables other than those defining the subgroups cross-sectionally and longitudinally; 3. long-term stability; 4. significant differences between groups in aetiology, pathophysiology, and evidence-based therapy. In contrast to examples from somatic medicine, such as type 1 and type 2 diabetes, few psychiatric disorders meet these requirements.

psychiatry

Why Psychiatric Research Must Abandon Traditional Diagnostic Classification and Adopt a Fully Dimensional Scope: Two Solutions to a Persistent Problem.

Beyond the boundaries: Transitioning from categorical to dimensional paradigms in mental health diagnostics

A hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology can transform mental health research

Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses

Do We Need a Novel Framework for Classifying Psychopathology? A Discussion Paper

Reimagining psychoses: an agnostic approach to diagnosis.

Rethinking the Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: Data-Driven Psychological Dimensions, Not Categories, as a Framework for Mental-Health Research, Treatment, and Training

How to construct neuroscience-informed psychiatric classification? Towards nomothetic networks psychiatry

Synthesizing Dimensional and Categorical Approaches to Personality Disorders: Refining the Research Agenda for Dsm-V Axis Ii

Prioritization of Psychopathological Symptoms and Clinical Characterization in Psychiatric Diagnoses: A Narrative Review

The Dimensional Conceptualization of Personality Disorders: Personality Organization, Personality Functioning, and Personality Disorders

Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review

Personality disorders, fact or fiction? The dark future of their diagnosis

Hierarchical models of psychopathology: empirical support, implications, and remaining issues

The DSM-ICD diagnostic approach as an essential bridge between the patient and the "big data"

Classification, selfhood, and culture in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual

High Throughput Phenotyping for Dimensional Psychopathology in Electronic Health Records.

Reconstructing Psychopathology: A Data-Driven Reorganization of the Symptoms in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

The Problem No One is Talking About: Forensic Evaluators' Lack of Familiarity with Dimensional Approaches to Personality and Psychopathology

Fractures in the framework: limitations of classification systems in psychiatry

Searching for diagnoses and subgroups: a suggestion for criteria