Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26877115›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2016

The NIMH Research Domain Criteria Initiative: Background, Issues, and Pragmatics.

Michael J Kozak, Bruce N Cuthbert

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 303 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
303citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

303 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Momentary physiological indices related to eating disorders: A systematic and methodological review.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

243 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael J KozakNational Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Bruce N CuthbertNational Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article describes the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative. The description includes background, rationale, goals, and the way the initiative has been developed and organized. The central RDoC concepts are summarized and the current matrix of constructs that have been vetted by workshops of extramural scientists is depicted. A number of theoretical and methodological issues that can arise in connection with the nature of RDoC constructs are highlighted: subjectivism and heterophenomenology, desynchrony and theoretical neutrality among units of analysis, theoretical reductionism, endophenotypes, biomarkers, neural circuits, construct "grain size," and analytic challenges. The importance of linking RDoC constructs to psychiatric clinical problems is discussed. Some pragmatics of incorporating RDoC concepts into applications for NIMH research funding are considered, including sampling design.

Indexed as

National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)HumansMental DisordersPsychopathologyUnited StatesBiometricsDiagnostic and Statistical ManualHypothetical constructsNational Institute of Mental HealthPsychometricsPsychopathologyResearch Domain Criteria

Identifiers

PMID26877115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.