ArticleMolecular neuropsychiatry2018
Research Domain Criteria: Cutting Edge Neuroscience or Galen's Humors Revisited?
Article in Molecular neuropsychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conceptual Framework for Nutritional Psychology as a New Field of Research.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Translational In Vivo Assays in Behavioral Biology.Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology · 2024Review
- Languaging psychopathology: neurobiology and metaphor.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Review
- Review
- The Unique Contribution of Past Bullying Experiences to the Presence of Psychosis-Like Experiences in University Students.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- On the Interplay Between the Medicine of Hildegard of Bingen and Modern Medicine: The Role of Estrogen Receptor as an Example of Biodynamic Interface for Studying the Chronic Disease's Complexity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Psychedelic Therapy's Transdiagnostic Effects: A Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Perspective.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Review
- Research Domain Criteria: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Potential Alternatives for Future Psychiatric Research.Molecular neuropsychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) scheme has guided the research agenda of the National Institute of Mental Health for the past decade. The essence of RDoC is its dimensional conception of mental illness, with the assumption that psychopathology is a manifestation of extremes along axes of neuropsychological variation. Research, it follows, should emphasize normal neuropsychological function and its associated neurocircuitry. We argue that RDoC, dressed in terms of modern neurobiology, is in fact a return to the humoral theory of Galen, a dimensional approach in which physical and mental health requires a balance of the four basic bodily humors (blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm). The RDoC/Galenic approach may be useful in understanding those conditions best understood as extremes along a continuum, such as personality disorders. However, we contend that for the most severe psychiatric disorders - categorically defined diseases such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism - RDoC's Galenic dimensionalism is a retreat from the biomedical approach that seeks to find rational therapeutic targets by identifying etiologic factors and pathogenic pathways. Abandoning this medical model now, in the context of remarkable advances in genetics, neuroimaging, and neuroscience, is a major setback for the advancement of scientific psychiatry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.