ArticleClinical neuropsychiatry2022
Biological Psychiatry is Dead, Long Live Biological Psychiatry!
Article in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 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.
- Applying a causal biopsychosocial model to guide medicine and psychiatry fifty years after Engel.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Molecules, meaning, and physiology: disentangling the active ingredients of psychedelic therapeutics.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Everyday stress-induced neurobehavioral dysregulation: therapeutic targets for management with Neurexan.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Beyond Step Count: Are We Ready to Use Digital Phenotyping to Make Actionable Individual Predictions in Psychiatry?Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Continuous remote monitoring of neurophysiologic Immersion accurately predicts mood.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Mental Health Challenges during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Obsessive-compulsive existential type: a dialectical-phenomenological approach.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Article Highlights.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The failure of biological psychiatry to deliver on its promises of enlightening the origin of psychiatric disorders and optimizing their treatment is due to invalid theoretical postulates that derive from an outdated conceptualization of human biology. The crisis of biological psychiatry depends on its identification with functional biology. A major contribution of evolutionary biology (the other current of biological thought) is to integrate the study of environmental variables (developmental, interpersonal, and ecological) with those mechanisms that are the field of study of functional biology (genetics, anatomy, and physiology). A new theoretical framework based on the integration of functional and evolutionary explanations can revitalize the crippled field of biological psychiatry.
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.