Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26877133›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2016

Psychobiological operationalization of RDoC constructs: Methodological and conceptual opportunities and challenges.

Annmarie MacNamara, K Luan Phan

Abstract readComment
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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Annmarie MacNamaraDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
K Luan PhanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

Negative Valence Brain Targets and Predictors of Anxiety and Depression TreatmentR01MH101497 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI PHAN, K. LUAN · 2013 to 2016
$2.6M
Brain-Behavior Markers of Negative Affectivity, Comorbidity in Anxiety DisordersK23MH105553 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI MACNAMARA, ANNMARIE EILEEN · 2015 to 2018
$648k
NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH105553NIMH NIH HHS K23MH105553NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH101497NIMH NIH HHS R01MH101497
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

NIMH's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project seeks to advance the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of mental disorders by promoting psychobiological research on dimensional constructs that might cut across traditional diagnostic boundaries (Kozak & Cuthbert, ). At the core of this approach is the notion that these dimensional constructs can be assessed across different units of analysis (e.g., genes, physiology, behavior), enriching the constructs and providing more complete explanations of clinical problems. While the conceptual aspects of RDoC have been discussed in several prior papers, its methodological aspects have received comparatively less attention. For example, how to integrate data from different units of analysis has been relatively unclear. Here, we discuss one means of psychobiologically operationalizing RDoC constructs across different units of analysis (the psychoneurometric approach; Yancey et al., ), highlighting ways in which this approach might be refined in future iterations. We conclude that there is much to be learned from this technique; however, greater attention to scale-development methods and to psychometrics will likely benefit this and other methodological approaches to combining measurements across multiple units of analysis.

Indexed as

National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)ResearchHumansLearningMental DisordersNeurosciencesPsychoneurometricsResearch Domain CriteriaThreat sensitivityUnits of analysis

Identifiers

PMID26877133
PMCPMC4851161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.