Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32699508›Full record

ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2020

The role of RDoC in future classification of mental disorders
.

Bruce N Cuthbert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digital tools for direct assessment of autism risk during early childhood: A systematic review.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Mice lacking two alleles of the schizophrenia risk geneFrontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 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

1 author.

Bruce N CuthbertNational Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project constitutes a translational framework for psychopathology research, initiated by the National Institute of Mental Health in an attempt to provide new avenues for research to circumvent problems emerging from the use of symptom-based diagnostic categories in diagnosing disorders. The RDoC alternative is a focus on psychopathology based on dimensions simultaneously defined by observable behavior (including quantitative measures of cognitive or affective behavior) and neurobiological measures. Key features of the RDoC framework include an emphasis on functional dimensions that range from normal to abnormal, integration of multiple measures in study designs (which can foster computational approaches), and high priority on studies of neurodevelopment and environmental influences (and their interaction) that can contribute to advances in understanding the etiology of disorders throughout the lifespan. The paper highlights key implications for ways in which RDoC can contribute to future ideas about classification, as well as some of the considerations involved in translating basic behavioral and neuroscience data to psychopathology.
.

Indexed as

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersForecastingHumansMental DisordersNational Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)United Statespsychiatric diagnosispsychiatric nosologyRDoCResearch Domain Criteria

Identifiers

PMID32699508
PMCPMC7365298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.