Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34566711›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2021

Decision Models and Technology Can Help Psychiatry Develop Biomarkers.

Daniel S Barron, Justin T Baker, Kristin S Budde, Danilo Bzdok, Simon B Eickhoff, Karl J Friston, Peter T Fox, Paul Geha, Stephen Heisig, Avram Holmes and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

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

14 authors.

Daniel S BarronDepartment of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Justin T BakerDepartment of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, United States.
Kristin S BuddeDepartment of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Danilo BzdokDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, McConnell Brain Imaging Centre (BIC), Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI), McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Simon B EickhoffMedical Faculty, Institute of Systems Neuroscience, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Karl J FristonThe Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter T FoxResearch Imaging Institute, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX, United States.
Paul GehaDepartments of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.
Stephen HeisigT.J. Watson IBM Research Laboratory, Yorktown Heights, NY, United States.
Avram HolmesDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Jukka-Pekka OnnelaDepartment of Biostatistics, T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States.
Albert PowersDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
David SilbersweigDepartment of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
John H KrystalDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.

Funding

Clinical Neuroscience Research Training Program in PsychiatryT32MH019961 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Christopher John Pittenger · 1996 to 2026
$5.9M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Why is psychiatry unable to define clinically useful biomarkers? We explore this question from the vantage of data and decision science and consider biomarkers as a form of phenotypic data that resolves a well-defined clinical decision. We introduce a framework that systematizes different forms of phenotypic data and further introduce the concept of decision model to describe the strategies a clinician uses to seek out, combine, and act on clinical data. Though many medical specialties rely on quantitative clinical data and operationalized decision models, we observe that, in psychiatry, clinical data are gathered and used in idiosyncratic decision models that exist solely in the clinician's mind and therefore are outside empirical evaluation. This, we argue, is a fundamental reason why psychiatry is unable to define clinically useful biomarkers: because psychiatry does not currently quantify clinical data, decision models cannot be operationalized and, in the absence of an operationalized decision model, it is impossible to define how a biomarker might be of use. Here, psychiatry might benefit from digital technologies that have recently emerged specifically to quantify clinically relevant facets of human behavior. We propose that digital tools might help psychiatry in two ways: first, by quantifying data already present in the standard clinical interaction and by allowing decision models to be operationalized and evaluated; second, by testing whether new forms of data might have value within an operationalized decision model. We reference successes from other medical specialties to illustrate how quantitative data and operationalized decision models improve patient care.

Indexed as

Bayesian inferencebiomarkerdecision modeldiagnosisdigital phenotypepsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID34566711
PMCPMC8458705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.