Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27642641›Full record

ReviewBiological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging2016

Beyond Lumping and Splitting: A Review of Computational Approaches for Stratifying Psychiatric Disorders.

Andre F Marquand, Thomas Wolfers, Maarten Mennes, Jan Buitelaar, Christian F Beckmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

132 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Ensemble clustering: A practical tutorial.Behavior research methods · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

5 authors.

Andre F MarquandDonders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen; Department of Cognitive Neuroscience , Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen; Department of Neuroimaging (AFM), Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London.
Thomas WolfersDonders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Maarten MennesDonders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Jan BuitelaarDonders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen; Department of Cognitive Neuroscience , Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen; Karakter Child and Adolescent Psychiatric University Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Christian F BeckmannDonders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen; Department of Cognitive Neuroscience , Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen; Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain (CFB), University of Oxford, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heterogeneity is a key feature of all psychiatric disorders that manifests on many levels, including symptoms, disease course, and biological underpinnings. These form a substantial barrier to understanding disease mechanisms and developing effective, personalized treatments. In response, many studies have aimed to stratify psychiatric disorders, aiming to find more consistent subgroups on the basis of many types of data. Such approaches have received renewed interest after recent research initiatives, such as the National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria and the European Roadmap for Mental Health Research, both of which emphasize finding stratifications that are based on biological systems and that cut across current classifications. We first introduce the basic concepts for stratifying psychiatric disorders and then provide a methodologically oriented and critical review of the existing literature. This shows that the predominant clustering approach that aims to subdivide clinical populations into more coherent subgroups has made a useful contribution but is heavily dependent on the type of data used; it has produced many different ways to subgroup the disorders we review, but for most disorders it has not converged on a consistent set of subgroups. We highlight problems with current approaches that are not widely recognized and discuss the importance of validation to ensure that the derived subgroups index clinically relevant variation. Finally, we review emerging techniques-such as those that estimate normative models for mappings between biology and behavior-that provide new ways to parse the heterogeneity underlying psychiatric disorders and evaluate all methods to meeting the objectives of such as the National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria and Roadmap for Mental Health Research.

Indexed as

European Roadmap for Mental Health ResearchHeterogeneityLatent cluster analysisPsychiatryRDoCResearch Domain CriteriaROAMERSubgroup

Identifiers

PMID27642641
PMCPMC5013873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.