ArticleMolecular psychiatry2026
Cognitive arbitration between candidate dimensions of psychopathology.
Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the Pulmonary Nodule Malignant Transformation Fear Scale (PN-MTFS) to identify patients at high risk of cancer-related fear: a multicenter study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Inflammatory profiles of transdiagnostic symptom dimensions in healthy females.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025Article
- Metacognitive biases in anxiety-depression and compulsivity extend across perception and memory.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Information search under uncertainty across transdiagnostic psychopathology and healthy ageing.Translational 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As an alternative to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, transdiagnostic approaches that identify latent dimensions of psychopathology through factor analysis have gained prominence in recent years. A key critique of these approaches, however, is that they are performed at the level of symptoms only. This begs the question: are these dimensions truly more valid predictors of external outcomes than existing alternatives? Are there other ways, that are more data-driven, which can allow us to refine our definitions of clinical phenotypes? We tested this idea empirically, conducting a large-scale meta-scientific comparison of thousands of competing factor solutions that allowed us to determine if the latent structure underlying the covariation of psychiatric symptoms has robust and specific cognitive correlates. In nine independent datasets, comprising N = 7565 individuals including patients about to start mental health treatment, healthy individuals, paid and unpaid participants, a broad set of age ranges and cognitive task variants that measured model-based planning and metacognition, we found that factors with the best fit to cognition were those derived from a first-order factor analysis on the maximal number of theoretically informed self-report symptoms available. These factors ('Compulsivity and Intrusive Thought' and 'Anxious-depression') performed better than thousands of engineered alternatives and performed twice as well as traditional questionnaire total scores. Crucially, this unsupervised approached based on symptom correlation only performed on-par with a partial least squares analysis, a supervised approach to deriving factors based on cognition. These results provide evidence that unsupervised factor analysis of psychiatric symptoms is a viable method for rethinking how we define mental health and illness, affording clear opportunities for enhancing our understanding of specific underlying mechanistic processes.
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.