Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28398574›Full record

ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin2017

Can RDoC Help Find Order in Thought Disorder?

Alex S Cohen, Thanh P Le, Taylor L Fedechko, Brita Elvevåg

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alex S CohenDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Thanh P LeDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Taylor L FedechkoDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Brita ElvevågDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø-The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
Louisiana State University · USUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thought disorder is a pernicious and nonspecific aspect of numerous serious mental illnesses (SMIs) and related conditions. Despite decades of empirical research on thought disorder, our present understanding of it is poor, our clinical assessments focus on a limited set of extreme behaviors, and treatments are palliative at best. Applying a Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework to thought disorder research offers advantages to explicate its phenotype; isolate its mechanisms; and develop more effective assessments, treatments, and potential cures. In this commentary, we discuss ways in which thought disorder can be understood within the RDoC framework. We propose operationalizing thought disorder within the RDoC construct of language using psycholinguistic sciences, to help objectify and quantify language within individuals; technologically sophisticated paradigms, to allow naturalistic behavioral sampling techniques with unprecedented ecological validity; and computational modeling, to account for a network of interconnected and dynamic linguistic, cognitive, affective, and social functions. We also highlight challenges for understanding thought disorder within an RDoC framework. Thought disorder likely does not occur as an isomorphic dysfunction in a single RDoC construct, but rather, as multiple potential dysfunctions in a network of RDoC constructs. Moreover, thought disorder is dynamic over time and context within individuals. In sum, RDoC is a useful framework to integrate multidisciplinary research efforts aimed at operationalizing, understanding, and ameliorating thought disorder.

Indexed as

HumansMental DisordersNational Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)ThinkingUnited Statescomputational psychiatrydisorganizationlanguagepsycholinguisticsschizophreniaserious mental illness

Identifiers

PMID28398574
PMCPMC5463977
OpenAlexW2604475932

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.