ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Towards New Methodology for Cross-Validation of Clinical Evaluation Scales and Functional MRI in Psychiatry.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpretable and integrative deep learning for discovering brain-behaviour associations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Functional magnetic resonance imaging of depression: a bibliometrics and meta-analysis.Annals of general psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective biomarkers have been a critical challenge for the field of psychiatry, where diagnostic, prognostic, and theranostic assessments are still based on subjective narratives. Psychopathology operates with idiographic knowledge and subjective evaluations incorporated into clinical assessment inventories, but is considered to be a medical discipline and, as such, uses medical intervention methods (e.g., pharmacological, ECT; rTMS; tDCS) and, therefore, is supposed to operate with the language and methods of nomothetic networks. The idiographic assessments are provisionally "quantified" into "structured clinical scales" to in some way resemble nomothetic measures. Instead of fostering data merging and integration, this approach further encapsulates the clinical psychiatric methods, as all other biological tests (molecular, neuroimaging) are performed separately, only after the clinical assessment has provided diagnosis. Translational cross-validation of clinical assessment instruments and fMRI is an attempt to address the gap. The aim of this approach is to investigate whether there exist common and specific neural circuits, which underpin differential item responses to clinical self-rating scales during fMRI sessions in patients suffering from the two main spectra of mental disorders: schizophrenia and major depression. The current status of this research program and future implications to promote the development of psychiatry as a medical discipline are discussed.
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.