Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28316565›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2017

Six Years of Research on the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Initiative: A Systematic Review.

Dean Carcone, Anthony C Ruocco

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Dean CarconeDepartments of Psychology and Psychological Clinical Science, University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada.
Anthony C RuoccoDepartments of Psychology and Psychological Clinical Science, University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Six years have passed since the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in the United States launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative. The RDoC introduces a framework for research on the biology of mental illness that integrates research findings across multiple levels of information. The framework outlines constructs that represent specific quantifiable dimensions of behavior (e.g., responses to acute threat, cognitive control) and corresponding units of analysis that can be used to study the constructs, beginning at the levels of genes, molecules, cells, circuits and physiology, and moving up to behaviors and self-reports. In this systematic review, a literature search was conducted to synthesize empirical research published since the proposal of the framework that incorporated the RDoC. Forty-eight peer-reviewed scholarly articles met eligibility criteria for the review. Studies differed according to whether they analyzed RDoC constructs and units of analysis within vs. between clinically-diagnosed and non-psychiatric samples. The most commonly studied constructs were subsumed within the domains of Negative Valence Systems, Positive Valence Systems and Cognitive Systems, providing initial results which primarily connected genetics, brain circuits and physiology research findings with behavior and self-reports. Prospects for future research adopting the RDoC matrix and utilizing a dimensional approach to studying the biology of mental illness are discussed.

Indexed as

braincellscircuits and systemsmental disordersneurosciencephysiologyresearch domain criteria (RDoC)

Identifiers

PMID28316565
PMCPMC5334510

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.