ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Affect before diagnosis: applying affective neuroscience to psychiatry.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Jaak Panksepp spent nearly five decades mapping the primary-process affective systems of the mammalian brain across different species, producing a framework of considerable empirical power that is functionally invisible within psychiatry. Psychiatry has not built upon that literature in human contexts. Consequently, Affect has never occupied the foundational place in psychiatry that the evidence warrants. This paper attempts to close that gap and assembles twelve converging lines of evidence for subcortical primacy of Affect, including evidence not previously synthesized for this purpose: pseudobulbar affect, gelastic and dacrystic epilepsy, double dissociation of volitional and emotional facial expression, affective blindsight, and neonatal emotional behavior. The evidence shows that Affect is generated subcortically, the cortex modulates rather than creates it, and when cortical regulation is removed or impaired, affective states persist or intensify. From this evidence, personality is best understood as an individual's position in a configuration space defined by subcortical Affect generation parameters and cortical regulatory capacity, with psychopathology occurring when signal intensity chronically exceeds or overwhelms regulatory capacity. This framework generates a specific clinical prediction: conditions that co-occur with personality pathology at rates incompatible with independent etiology are expressions of the same affective architecture through different conditioned channels, not independent diseases. Evidence confirms this directly: when personality pathology improves, its comorbid conditions decline substantially; when it does not, they persist. Further, the affective-regulatory framework transforms the clinical encounter by replacing a character verdict with a neurobiologically grounded account in which regulatory capacity is buildable and recovery is construction rather than correction.
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.