ArticleDialogues in clinical neuroscience2015
The Kraepelinian tradition.
Article in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling Negative Symptom Domain Neurobiology: Protocol for an Observational, Transdiagnostic, Translational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Observational
- Emil Kraepelin as a historian of psychiatry - one hundred years on.History of psychiatry · 2023Review
- Whole Person Modeling: a transdisciplinary approach to mental health research.Discover mental health · 2023Review
- The relationship between physical activity states and depressive symptoms: Using ambulatory assessment to characterize day-to-day associations among individuals with and without bipolar spectrum disorder.Depression and anxiety · 2022Article
- Addictive and other mental disorders: a call for a standardized definition of dual disorders.Translational psychiatry · 2022Review
- [Mathilde Ludendorff (1877-1966): specialist for nervous and mental diseases and Germanic philosopher].Der Nervenarzt · 2022Review
- Application of Mass Multivariate Analysis on Neuroimaging Data Sets for Precision Diagnostics of Depression.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A New Paradigm to Indicate Antidepressant Treatments.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Kraepelin's Final Views on Dementia Praecox.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2021Article
- The evolution of Kraepelin's nosological principles.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2020Article
- [Schizophrenia: pars pro toto for psychiatry? : A historical essay on the status of schizophrenia in psychiatric discourse].Der Nervenarzt · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926) was an influential figure in the history of psychiatry as a clinical science. This paper, after briefly presenting his biography, discusses the conceptual foundations of his concept of mental illness and follows this line of thought through to late 20th-century "Neo-Kraepelinianism," including recent criticism, particularly of the nosological dichotomy of endogenous psychoses. Throughout his professional life, Kraepelin put emphasis on establishing psychiatry as a clinical science with a strong empirical background. He preferred pragmatic attitudes and arguments, thus underestimating the philosophical presuppositions of his work. As for nosology, his central hypothesis is the existence and scientific accessibility of "natural disease entities" ("natürliche Krankheitseinheiten") in psychiatry. Notwithstanding contemporary criticism that he commented upon, this concept stayed at the very center of Kraepelin's thinking, and therefore profoundly shaped his clinical nosology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25987861PMC4421898What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.