Reimagining psychoses: An agnostic approach to diagnosis

Matcheri S. Keshavan, Brett A. Clementz, Godfrey D. Pearlson, John A. Sweeney, Carol A. Tamminga

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: Current approaches to defining and classifying psychotic disorders are compromised by substantive heterogeneity within, blurred boundaries between, as well as overlaps across the various disorders in outcome, treatment response, emerging evidence regarding pathophysiology and presumed etiology. Methods: We herein review the evolution, current status and the constraints posed by classic symptom-based diagnostic approaches. We compare the continuing constructs that underlie the current classification of psychoses, and contrast those to evolving new thinking in other areas of medicine. Results: An important limitation in current psychiatric nosology may stem from the fact that symptom-based diagnoses do not "carve nature at its joints"; while symptom-based classifications have improved our reliability, they may lack validity. Next steps in developing a more valid scientific nosology for psychoses include a) agnostic deconstruction of disease dimensions, identifying disease markers and endophenotypes; b) mapping such markers across translational domains from behaviors to molecules, c) reclustering cross-cutting bio-behavioral data using modern phenotypic and biometric approaches, and finally d) validating such entities using etio-pathology, outcome and treatment-response measures. Conclusions: The proposed steps of deconstruction and "bottom-up" disease definition, as elsewhere in medicine, may well provide a better foundation for developing a nosology for psychotic disorders that may have better utility in predicting outcome, treatment response and etiology, and identifying novel treatment approaches.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)10-16
Number of pages7
JournalSchizophrenia Research
Volume146
Issue number1-3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Psychotic Disorders
Medicine
Endophenotypes
Psychiatry
Joints
Pathology

Keywords

  • Diagnosis
  • Pathophysiology
  • Schizophrenia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Biological Psychiatry

Cite this

Keshavan, M. S., Clementz, B. A., Pearlson, G. D., Sweeney, J. A., & Tamminga, C. A. (2013). Reimagining psychoses: An agnostic approach to diagnosis. Schizophrenia Research, 146(1-3), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2013.02.022

Reimagining psychoses : An agnostic approach to diagnosis. / Keshavan, Matcheri S.; Clementz, Brett A.; Pearlson, Godfrey D.; Sweeney, John A.; Tamminga, Carol A.

In: Schizophrenia Research, Vol. 146, No. 1-3, 05.2013, p. 10-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Keshavan, MS, Clementz, BA, Pearlson, GD, Sweeney, JA & Tamminga, CA 2013, 'Reimagining psychoses: An agnostic approach to diagnosis', Schizophrenia Research, vol. 146, no. 1-3, pp. 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2013.02.022
Keshavan MS, Clementz BA, Pearlson GD, Sweeney JA, Tamminga CA. Reimagining psychoses: An agnostic approach to diagnosis. Schizophrenia Research. 2013 May;146(1-3):10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2013.02.022
Keshavan, Matcheri S. ; Clementz, Brett A. ; Pearlson, Godfrey D. ; Sweeney, John A. ; Tamminga, Carol A. / Reimagining psychoses : An agnostic approach to diagnosis. In: Schizophrenia Research. 2013 ; Vol. 146, No. 1-3. pp. 10-16.
@article{8efe3ae2a3e0441aada3106797308f73,
title = "Reimagining psychoses: An agnostic approach to diagnosis",
abstract = "Objectives: Current approaches to defining and classifying psychotic disorders are compromised by substantive heterogeneity within, blurred boundaries between, as well as overlaps across the various disorders in outcome, treatment response, emerging evidence regarding pathophysiology and presumed etiology. Methods: We herein review the evolution, current status and the constraints posed by classic symptom-based diagnostic approaches. We compare the continuing constructs that underlie the current classification of psychoses, and contrast those to evolving new thinking in other areas of medicine. Results: An important limitation in current psychiatric nosology may stem from the fact that symptom-based diagnoses do not {"}carve nature at its joints{"}; while symptom-based classifications have improved our reliability, they may lack validity. Next steps in developing a more valid scientific nosology for psychoses include a) agnostic deconstruction of disease dimensions, identifying disease markers and endophenotypes; b) mapping such markers across translational domains from behaviors to molecules, c) reclustering cross-cutting bio-behavioral data using modern phenotypic and biometric approaches, and finally d) validating such entities using etio-pathology, outcome and treatment-response measures. Conclusions: The proposed steps of deconstruction and {"}bottom-up{"} disease definition, as elsewhere in medicine, may well provide a better foundation for developing a nosology for psychotic disorders that may have better utility in predicting outcome, treatment response and etiology, and identifying novel treatment approaches.",
keywords = "Diagnosis, Pathophysiology, Schizophrenia",
author = "Keshavan, {Matcheri S.} and Clementz, {Brett A.} and Pearlson, {Godfrey D.} and Sweeney, {John A.} and Tamminga, {Carol A.}",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.schres.2013.02.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "146",
pages = "10--16",
journal = "Schizophrenia Research",
issn = "0920-9964",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1-3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reimagining psychoses

T2 - An agnostic approach to diagnosis

AU - Keshavan, Matcheri S.

AU - Clementz, Brett A.

AU - Pearlson, Godfrey D.

AU - Sweeney, John A.

AU - Tamminga, Carol A.

PY - 2013/5

Y1 - 2013/5

N2 - Objectives: Current approaches to defining and classifying psychotic disorders are compromised by substantive heterogeneity within, blurred boundaries between, as well as overlaps across the various disorders in outcome, treatment response, emerging evidence regarding pathophysiology and presumed etiology. Methods: We herein review the evolution, current status and the constraints posed by classic symptom-based diagnostic approaches. We compare the continuing constructs that underlie the current classification of psychoses, and contrast those to evolving new thinking in other areas of medicine. Results: An important limitation in current psychiatric nosology may stem from the fact that symptom-based diagnoses do not "carve nature at its joints"; while symptom-based classifications have improved our reliability, they may lack validity. Next steps in developing a more valid scientific nosology for psychoses include a) agnostic deconstruction of disease dimensions, identifying disease markers and endophenotypes; b) mapping such markers across translational domains from behaviors to molecules, c) reclustering cross-cutting bio-behavioral data using modern phenotypic and biometric approaches, and finally d) validating such entities using etio-pathology, outcome and treatment-response measures. Conclusions: The proposed steps of deconstruction and "bottom-up" disease definition, as elsewhere in medicine, may well provide a better foundation for developing a nosology for psychotic disorders that may have better utility in predicting outcome, treatment response and etiology, and identifying novel treatment approaches.

AB - Objectives: Current approaches to defining and classifying psychotic disorders are compromised by substantive heterogeneity within, blurred boundaries between, as well as overlaps across the various disorders in outcome, treatment response, emerging evidence regarding pathophysiology and presumed etiology. Methods: We herein review the evolution, current status and the constraints posed by classic symptom-based diagnostic approaches. We compare the continuing constructs that underlie the current classification of psychoses, and contrast those to evolving new thinking in other areas of medicine. Results: An important limitation in current psychiatric nosology may stem from the fact that symptom-based diagnoses do not "carve nature at its joints"; while symptom-based classifications have improved our reliability, they may lack validity. Next steps in developing a more valid scientific nosology for psychoses include a) agnostic deconstruction of disease dimensions, identifying disease markers and endophenotypes; b) mapping such markers across translational domains from behaviors to molecules, c) reclustering cross-cutting bio-behavioral data using modern phenotypic and biometric approaches, and finally d) validating such entities using etio-pathology, outcome and treatment-response measures. Conclusions: The proposed steps of deconstruction and "bottom-up" disease definition, as elsewhere in medicine, may well provide a better foundation for developing a nosology for psychotic disorders that may have better utility in predicting outcome, treatment response and etiology, and identifying novel treatment approaches.

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Pathophysiology

KW - Schizophrenia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875917731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875917731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.schres.2013.02.022

DO - 10.1016/j.schres.2013.02.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 23498153

AN - SCOPUS:84875917731

VL - 146

SP - 10

EP - 16

JO - Schizophrenia Research

JF - Schizophrenia Research

SN - 0920-9964

IS - 1-3

ER -