10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Impact of Translational Neuroscience on Revisiting Psychiatric Diagnosis: State of the Art and Conceptual Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This paper reviews translational research in psychiatry, focusing on those programs addressing the problem of the validity of psychiatric diagnoses. In medicine in general, and in psychiatry in particular, the term “translational” is used with different meanings. A conceptual analysis suggests that there are at least seven different types of translational research in psychiatry: T1 (“bench-to-bedside” development of tools and treatments), T2 (application of animal models to human psychiatry), T3 (papers focusing on the mind-brain gap, studying biological, neurobiological and cognitive dysfunctions), T4 (personalised therapies and prediction of treatment responses), T5 (“bedside-to-bench” translation of population data for laboratories), T6 (implementation of treatments at the population level, including accessibility and quality of services), and T7 (improving translational knowledge in residents’ trainings and researchers’ careers).

          Concerning the problem of validity of psychiatric diagnoses, new neurocognitive models like the Research Domain Criteria project are considered, in particular the translational program of cross-validation aimed at reducing the gap between neuroimaging data and psychopathological scores derived from rating-scales. It is shown that these programs are useful, filling some of the current research gaps, but it is also stressed that they carry implicit realist and reductionist assumptions. It is finally suggested that the formation of mental symptoms is a complex process involving both neurocognitive and semantic factors, which raises doubts about the possibility of complete translations, without residuals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The meaning of translational research and why it matters.

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Can Interoception Improve the Pragmatic Search for Biomarkers in Psychiatry?

            Disrupted interoception is a prominent feature of the diagnostic classification of several psychiatric disorders. However, progress in understanding the interoceptive basis of these disorders has been incremental, and the application of interoception in clinical treatment is currently limited to panic disorder. To examine the degree to which the scientific community has recognized interoception as a construct of interest, we identified and individually screened all articles published in the English language on interoception and associated root terms in Pubmed, Psychinfo, and ISI Web of Knowledge. This search revealed that interoception is a multifaceted process that is being increasingly studied within the fields of psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience, and biomedical science. To illustrate the multifaceted nature of interoception, we provide a focused review of one of the most commonly studied interoceptive channels, the cardiovascular system, and give a detailed comparison of the most popular methods used to study cardiac interoception. We subsequently review evidence of interoceptive dysfunction in panic disorder, depression, somatic symptom disorders, anorexia nervosa, and bulimia nervosa. For each disorder, we suggest how interoceptive predictions constructed by the brain may erroneously bias individuals to express key symptoms and behaviors, and outline questions that are suitable for the development of neuroscience-based mental health interventions. We conclude that interoception represents a viable avenue for clinical and translational research in psychiatry, with a well-established conceptual framework, a neural basis, measurable biomarkers, interdisciplinary appeal, and transdiagnostic targets for understanding and improving mental health outcomes.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clashing Diagnostic Approaches: DSM-ICD Versus RDoC.

              Since at least the middle of the past century, one overarching model of psychiatric classification has reigned supreme, namely, that of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (herein referred to as DSM-ICD). This DSM-ICD approach embraces an Aristotelian view of mental disorders as largely discrete entities that are characterized by distinctive signs, symptoms, and natural histories. Over the past several years, however, a competing vision, namely, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative launched by the National Institute of Mental Health, has emerged in response to accumulating anomalies within the DSM-ICD system. In contrast to DSM-ICD, RDoC embraces a Galilean view of psychopathology as the product of dysfunctions in neural circuitry. RDoC appears to be a valuable endeavor that holds out the long-term promise of an alternative system of mental illness classification. We delineate three sets of pressing challenges--conceptual, methodological, and logistical/pragmatic--that must be addressed for RDoC to realize its scientific potential. We conclude with a call for further research, including investigation of a rapprochement between Aristotelian and Galilean approaches to psychiatric classification.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Balkan Med J
                Balkan Med J
                BMJ
                Balkan Medical Journal
                Galenos Publishing
                2146-3123
                2146-3131
                December 2017
                1 December 2017
                : 34
                : 6
                : 487-492
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Crossing Dialogues Association, Rome, Italy
                Author notes
                * Address for Correspondence: Crossing Dialogues Association, Rome, Italy Phone: +39-3397119021 E-mail: massimiliano.aragona@ 123456uniroma1.it
                Article
                3002
                10.4274/balkanmedj.2017.1190
                5785652
                28958978
                ea55cd11-99d8-4f6b-93b5-ebe32588671e
                © Copyright 2017, Trakya University Faculty of Medicine

                Balkan Medical Journal

                History
                : 5 September 2017
                : 28 September 2017
                Categories
                Invited Review

                translational research,psychiatric classification,psychopathology,validity,research domain criteria,cambridge model

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log