ReviewBiological psychiatry2025
Integrating Knowledge: The Power of Ontologies in Psychiatric Research and Clinical Informatics.
Review in Biological 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.
- Beyond DSM Categories: Criteria for Biologically Valid Disease Axes in Psychiatry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Psychiatry in the real world.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ontologies are structured frameworks for representing knowledge by systematically defining concepts, categories, and their relationships. While widely adopted in biomedicine, ontologies remain largely absent in mental health research and clinical care, where the field continues to rely heavily on existing classification systems (e.g., the DSM). Although useful for clinical communication and administrative purposes, they lack the semantic structure, computational properties, and reasoning properties needed to integrate diverse data sources or support artificial intelligence-enabled analysis. This reliance on classification systems limits efforts to analyze and interpret complex, heterogeneous psychiatric data. In mood disorders, particularly bipolar disorder, the lack of formalized semantic models contributes to diagnostic inconsistencies, fragmented data structures, and barriers to precision medicine. By contrast, ontologies provide a standardized, machine-readable foundation for linking multimodal data sources, such as electronic health records, genetic and neuroimaging data, and social determinants of health, while enabling secure, deidentified computation. In this review, we survey the current landscape of mental health ontologies and highlight the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) as a promising framework for bridging psychiatric and medical phenotypes. We describe ongoing efforts to enhance the HPO through curated psychiatric terms, refined definitions, and structured mappings of observed phenomena. The Global Bipolar Cohort (GBC), an international collaboration, exemplifies this approach through the development of a consensus-driven ontology tailored to bipolar disorder. By supporting semantic interoperability, reproducible research, and individualized care, ontology-based approaches provide essential infrastructure for overcoming the limitations of classification systems and advancing data-driven precision 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.