ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Developmental co-calibration and therapeutic recalibration: a neurobiopsychosocial model of regulatory path dependence in psychosomatic care.
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
Psychotherapy and psychosomatic medicine require accounts that connect developmental context, embodied regulation, bodily symptoms, and treatment processes without collapsing them into a single causal story. This Hypothesis and Theory article presents developmental co-calibration as an integrative, testable specification rather than a set of novel component mechanisms. It proposes a staged chain in which biological dispositions and current affordances shape regulatory states; states and candidate interoceptive inference processes influence strategy selection; immediate consequences and environmental responses feed back into later states and contexts; and repeated episodes may alter transition probabilities over development. Its model-specific claim is regulatory path dependence: a prespecified distal regulatory history should improve prediction of current state or strategy transitions after accounting for current context, state, stable person characteristics, measurement opportunity, and immediate inertia. This claim differs from current regulatory inflexibility, variability, avoidance, and habit. The cited literatures inform individual links involving developmental plasticity, adversity, allostasis, interoception, regulatory flexibility, camouflaging, and psychotherapy processes; none tests the complete sequence. The framework therefore remains a staged, falsifiable research program. Health implications are separated into disease onset, exacerbation or course, persistent physical symptoms, functional somatic disorders, and multimorbidity; psychogenic causation is not inferred. Therapeutic recalibration is defined primarily as an intervention- or accommodation-associated change in the prespecified distal-history effect when baseline history predicted poorer fit, functional cost, or delayed recovery. Context-strategy-outcome fit and recovery are separate secondary process outcomes; symptom improvement alone does not qualify. State-matched psychotherapy and environmental accommodation are complementary candidate routes. The article specifies competing frameworks, measurable signatures, falsification criteria, and safeguards of medical humility and epistemic dignity.
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.