ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Mental health progress requires causal diagnostic nosology and scalable causal discovery.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. 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.
- Enhancing the utility of exploratory 'factors associated with' studies in global mental health: the importance of context in Sub-Saharan Africa.International journal of mental health systems · 2026Article
- Article
- A cautionary tale for AI and machine learning in psychiatry.Translational psychiatry · 2026Review
- Bayesian causal graphical model for joint Mendelian randomization analysis of multiple exposures and outcomes.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Treatment Personalization and Precision Mental Health Care: Where are we and where do we want to go?Administration and policy in mental health · 2024Article
- Cerebrospinal and Brain Proteins Implicated in Neuropsychiatric and Risk Factor Traits: Evidence from Mendelian Randomization.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Leveraging big data for causal understanding in mental health: a research framework.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Review
- Avoidance of causality outside experiments: Hypotheses from cognitive dissonance reduction.Science progressArticle
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
Nine hundred and seventy million individuals across the globe are estimated to carry the burden of a mental disorder. Limited progress has been achieved in alleviating this burden over decades of effort, compared to progress achieved for many other medical disorders. Progress on outcome improvement for all medical disorders, including mental disorders, requires research capable of discovering causality at sufficient scale and speed, and a diagnostic nosology capable of encoding the causal knowledge that is discovered. Accordingly, the field's guiding paradigm limits progress by maintaining: (a) a diagnostic nosology (DSM-5) with a profound lack of causality; (b) a misalignment between mental health etiologic research and nosology; (c) an over-reliance on clinical trials beyond their capabilities; and (d) a limited adoption of newer methods capable of discovering the complex etiology of mental disorders. We detail feasible directions forward, to achieve greater levels of progress on improving outcomes for mental disorders, by: (a) the discovery of knowledge on the complex etiology of mental disorders with application of Causal Data Science methods; and (b) the encoding of the etiological knowledge that is discovered within a causal diagnostic system for mental disorders.
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.