ArticleMolecular psychiatry2025
A history of metaphorical brain talk in psychiatry.
Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2025. 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.
- Overvalued Ideas: Conceptual Analysis and Literature Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- How the brain structures the boundaries of psychiatric discourse.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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
From the very beginnings of our field in the late 18th century, psychiatrists have engaged, often extensively, in "metaphorical brain talk" - rephrasing descriptions of mental processes in unconfirmed brain metaphors (e.g., "diseased working of the brain convolutions"). In the late 19th century, Kraepelin criticized the later developments of such approaches, termed "brain mythology" by the philosopher/psychiatrist Jaspers in 1913. In this essay, I review the history, meaning, and significance of this phenomenon and reach four conclusions. First, this trend has continued to the present day in metaphors such as the "broken brain" and the use of simplistic and empirically poorly supported explanations of psychiatric illness, such as depression being "due to an imbalance of serotonin in the brain." Second, our language stems from the tension in our profession that seeks to be a part of medicine yet declares our main focus as treatment of the mental. We feel more comfortable with the reductionist approach of brain metaphors, which, even though at times self-deceptive, reinforce our commitment to and membership in a brain-based medical specialty. Third, metaphorical brain talk can also be seen as the "promissory note" of our profession, a pledge that the day will come when we can indeed explain accurately to ourselves and to our patients the brain basis of the psychiatric disorders from which they suffer. Finally, moving away from metaphorical brain talk would reflect an increasing maturity of both the research and clinical aspects of our profession.
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.