Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27550461›Full record

ArticleRevue de synthese2016

[The Research Domain Criteria (Rdoc), reductionism and clinical psychiatry].

Luc Faucher, Simon Goyer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Revue de synthese, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luc FaucherDépartement de philosophie, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3P8. Faucher.luc@uqam.ca.
Simon GoyerDépartement de philosophie, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3P8.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The focus of the advocates of the Research Domain Critria (RDoC) on faulty brain circuits has led some to suspect it of being a reductionist enterprise. And because RDoC will eventually impact clinical psychiatry, some have feared that it will transform clinical psychiatry in a mindless and applied neurobehavioral science. We argue that if RDoC is officially endorsing a kind of reductionism, the particular kind of reductionism it endorses is not suffering from the shortcomings of more classical forms of reductionism. Because of that, at least in principle, RDoC could enrich rather than impoverish clinical psychiatry. This paper raises few potential problems of the RDoC for clinical psychiatry caused by its implicit epistemological reductionism.

Indexed as

PsychiatryFearHumansMental DisordersResearchClinical PsychiatryConception of mental DisorderPluralismRDoCReductionnism

Identifiers

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.