Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351434›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2021

[Negative valence systems in the system of research domain criteria : Empirical results and new developments].

Christoph W Korn, Robert C Wolf

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Christoph W KornKlinik für Allgemeine Psychiatrie, Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Voßstraße 4, 69115, Heidelberg, Deutschland. Christoph.Korn@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Robert C WolfKlinik für Allgemeine Psychiatrie, Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Voßstraße 4, 69115, Heidelberg, Deutschland. Christian.Wolf@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe research domain criteria (RDoC) domain of negative valence systems can be used to subsume long established and recently developed research approaches, which build upon theoretical knowledge and clinical practice of various psychiatric disorders.

objectiveThis article outlines how the five constructs within the RDoC domain of negative valence systems can contribute to integrating empirical studies into a coherent and differentiated biopsychosocial model. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis is a qualitative review article that summarizes empirical results and discusses new developments on the basis of exemplary studies and selected reviews. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The RDoC domain of negative valence systems differentiates in three constructs the time horizon, in which persons need to adequately react to (1) acute, (2) potential, and (3) sustained threats elicited by negative stimuli or situations. These three constructs can be outlined relatively well with specific experimental paradigms and neuronal circuits. Two further constructs focus on the negative consequences of (4) losses and (5) frustrative non-rewards. The former seems to be currently relatively diffusely defined whereas the latter is clearly circumscribed by its relation to specific forms of aggression. Behavioral, physiological, and neuronal reactions to acute and potential threats can be well compared between humans and animals and can be specified with the help of mathematical models. These models can contribute to a better understanding of how healthy and diseased persons process negative stimuli or situations.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersAggressionAnimalsHumansAggressionCognitive neuroscienceLossMental disordersThreats

Identifiers

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.