ArticleBMC medicine2020
Towards formal models of psychopathological traits that explain symptom trajectories.
Article in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometrics of drift-diffusion model parameters derived from the Eriksen flanker task: Reliability and validity in two independent samples.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Trait state occasion (TSO) modeling of event-related potentials (ERPs).Biological psychology · 2025Article
- Interval Timing as a Computational Pathway From Early Life Adversity to Affective Disorders.Topics in cognitive science · 2024Article
- Computational models of subjective feelings in psychiatry.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- A cultural-ecosocial systems view for psychiatry.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Mixing memory and desire: How memory reactivation supports deliberative decision-making.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2022Review
- Search for solutions, learning, simulation, and choice processes in suicidal behavior.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA dominant methodology in contemporary clinical neuroscience is the use of dimensional self-report questionnaires to measure features such as psychological traits (e.g., trait anxiety) and states (e.g., depressed mood). These dimensions are then mapped to biological measures and computational parameters. Researchers pursuing this approach tend to equate a symptom inventory score (plus noise) with some latent psychological trait. MAIN TEXT: We argue this approach implies weak, tacit, models of traits that provide fixed predictions of individual symptoms, and thus cannot account for symptom trajectories within individuals. This problem persists because (1) researchers are not familiarized with formal models that relate internal traits to within-subject symptom variation and (2) rely on an assumption that trait self-report inventories accurately indicate latent traits. To address these concerns, we offer a computational model of trait depression that demonstrates how parameters instantiating a given trait remain stable while manifest symptom expression varies predictably. We simulate patterns of mood variation from both the computational model and the standard self-report model and describe how to quantify the relative validity of each model using a Bayesian procedure.
conclusionsUltimately, we would urge a tempering of a reliance on self-report inventories and recommend a shift towards developing mechanistic trait models that can explain within-subject symptom dynamics.
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.