Evolution and Mental Disorders

2018 ◽  
pp. 129-152
Author(s):  
Marco Del Giudice
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Psychiatric Comorbidity ◽  
Broad Sense ◽  
Network Approach ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Developmental Processes ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Research Domain

The chapter discusses the definition of mental disorder, reviews the biological explanations for vulnerability to disease, and presents a detailed taxonomy of undesirable conditions that may be regarded as disorders in a broad sense (whether or not they involve genuine dysfunctions). After detailing the main evolutionary and developmental processes that can lead to psychopathology, the chapter addresses some important questions about the structure and classification of disorders and the nature of psychiatric comorbidity. The chapter also considers the strengths and weaknesses of other emerging approaches: computational psychiatry, the network approach to psychopathology, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), and transdiagnostic models such as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP).

scholarly journals Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Anna Clark ◽  
Bruce Cuthbert ◽  
Roberto Lewis-Fernández ◽  
William E. Narrow ◽  
Geoffrey M. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
The United States ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Prescribe Medication ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Research Domain

The diagnosis of mental disorder initially appears relatively straightforward: Patients present with symptoms or visible signs of illness; health professionals make diagnoses based primarily on these symptoms and signs; and they prescribe medication, psychotherapy, or both, accordingly. However, despite a dramatic expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their components and processes remains rudimentary. We provide histories and descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Two major diagnostic manuals—the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—provide classification systems relevant to public health, clinical diagnosis, service provision, and specific research applications, the former internationally and the latter primarily for the United States. In contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria provides a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorder. We identify four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. We discuss how the three systems’ approaches to these key issues correspond or diverge as a result of their different histories, purposes, and constituencies. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, they share the goal of reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder.

scholarly journals A Metastructural Model of Mental Disorders and Pathological Personality Traits

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan G.C. Wright ◽  
Leonard Simms
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Psychiatric Comorbidity ◽  
Common Mental Disorders ◽  
Pathological Personality Traits ◽  
Related Personality

Background: Psychiatric comorbidity is extensive in both psychiatric settings and the general population. Such comorbidity challenges whether DSM-based mental disorders serve to effectively carve nature at its joints. In response, a substantial literature has emerged showing that a small number of broad dimensions—internalizing, externalizing, and psychoticism—can account for much of the observed covariation among common mental disorders. However, the location of personality disorders within this emerging metastructure has only recently been studied, and no studies have yet examined where pathological personality traits fit within such a broad metastructural framework.Methods: We conducted joint structural analyses of common mental disorders, personality disorders, and pathological personality traits in a sample of 628 current or recent psychiatric outpatients. Results: Bridging across the psychopathology and personality trait literatures, the results provide evidence for a robust five-factor metastructure of psychopathology, including broad domains of symptoms and features related to internalizing, disinhibition, psychoticism, antagonism, and detachment. Conclusions: These results reveal evidence for a psychopathology metastructure that (a) parsimoniously accounts for much of the observed covariation among common mental disorders, personality disorders, and related personality traits, and (b) provides an empirical basis for the organization and classification of mental disorder.

Classification and Diagnosis of Psychopathology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Muris
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Network Approach ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Research Domain

This chapter deals with the classification and diagnosis of psychopathology in children and adolescents. An overview is given of the most prevalent mental health problems in youth that can be classified according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Methods are then described that can be employed to classify psychopathology in youth in terms of DSM nomenclature. Next, the pros and cons of the DSM classification system are discussed, after which a number of alternative ways that can be employed to classify psychopathology are addressed. These include the Research Domain Criteria framework and the complex network approach.

Towards a new conceptual framework for psychopathology: Embodiment, enactivism, and embedment

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 800-822 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristopher Nielsen ◽  
Tony Ward
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Continuous Model ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Eliminative Materialism ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Metaphysical Position ◽  
Research Domain

Psychopathology classification is at a conceptual crossroads. It is becoming increasingly accepted that the flaws of the DSM relate to its struggles to pick out “real” entities as opposed to clusters of symptoms. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) was formulated in response to this failure, and attempts to address the concerns confronting the DSM by shifting to a causal and continuous model of psychopathology. Noting key criticisms of neurocentricism and problems with conceptual validity leveled at the RDoC, we argue that they stem from its grounding in the metaphysical position of eliminative materialism, or at least material-reductionism. We propose that 3e cognition (viewing the mind as embodied, embedded, and enactive) offers a superior alternative to eliminative materialism. A 3e-informed framework of mental disorder is sketched out and its advantages as a basis for classifying and conceptualizing mental disorders are considered.

Alternative Models of Psychopathology: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, Research Domain Criteria, Network Analysis, the Cambridge Model, and the Five-Factor Model

2021 ◽  
pp. 216770262198935
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Research Domain

Wilshire, Ward, and Clark (this issue, p. ♦♦♦) critiqued the classification of psychopathology in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, offering as an alternative a “Cambridge model” that focuses on symptoms rather than syndromes. They compared their model with additional alternatives, such as the Research Domain Criteria, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, and network analysis. In this commentary, I offer further comparisons, considering as well the five-factor model alternative to the DSM syndromal classification of personality disorder.

Challenges of Fear Conditioning Research in the Age of RDoC

2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina B. Lonsdorf ◽  
Jan Richter
Keyword(s):  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Major Focus ◽  
The Future ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Methodological Considerations ◽  
Research Domain

Abstract. As the criticism of the definition of the phenotype (i.e., clinical diagnosis) represents the major focus of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, it is somewhat surprising that discussions have not yet focused more on specific conceptual and procedural considerations of the suggested RDoC constructs, sub-constructs, and associated paradigms. We argue that we need more precise thinking as well as a conceptual and methodological discussion of RDoC domains and constructs, their interrelationships as well as their experimental operationalization and nomenclature. The present work is intended to start such a debate using fear conditioning as an example. Thereby, we aim to provide thought-provoking impulses on the role of fear conditioning in the age of RDoC as well as conceptual and methodological considerations and suggestions to guide RDoC-based fear conditioning research in the future.

scholarly journals Towards a contemporary approach for understanding personality pathology in developmental context: An integrative model

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Melody R. Altschuler ◽  
Robert F. Krueger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Integrative Model ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Developmental Context ◽  
Dimensional Classification ◽  
Developmental Theories ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
Research Domain

Abstract Traditional categorical approaches to classifying personality disorders are limited in important ways, leading to a shift in the field to dimensional approaches to conceptualizing personality pathology. Different areas of psychology – personality, developmental, and psychopathology – can be leveraged to understand personality pathology by examining its structure, development, and underlying mechanisms. However, an integrative model that encompasses these distinct lines of inquiry has not yet been proposed. In order to address this gap, we review the latest evidence for dimensional classification of personality disorders based on structural models of maladaptive personality traits, provide an overview of developmental theories of pathological personality, and summarize the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, which seeks to understand underlying mechanisms of psychopathology. We conclude by proposing an integrative model of personality pathology development that aims to elucidate the developmental pathways of personality pathology and its underlying mechanisms.

scholarly journals The role of RDoC in future classification of mental disorders

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-85 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Affective Behavior ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Computational Approaches ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Research Domain

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project constitutes a translational framework for psychopathology research, initiated by the National Institute of Mental Health in an attempt to provide new avenues for research to circumvent problems emerging from the use of symptom-based diagnostic categories in diagnosing disorders. The RDoC alternative is a focus on psychopathology based on dimensions simultaneously defined by observable behavior (including quantitative measures of cognitive or affective behavior) and neurobiological measures. Key features of the RDoC framework include an emphasis on functional dimensions that range from normal to abnormal, integration of multiple measures in study designs (which can foster computational approaches), and high priority on studies of neurodevelopment and environmental influences (and their interaction) that can contribute to advances in understanding the etiology of disorders throughout the lifespan. The paper highlights key implications for ways in which RDoC can contribute to future ideas about classification, as well as some of the considerations involved in translating basic behavioral and neuroscience data to psychopathology.

scholarly journals A knowledge network for a dynamic taxonomy of psychiatric disease

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-87 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Strategic Plan ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Knowledge Network ◽  
Psychiatric Disease ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Research Domain

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project was initiated by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in early 2009 as the implementation of Goal 1.4 of its just-issued strategic plan. In keeping with the NIMH mission, to "transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research," RDoC was explicitly conceived as a research-related initiative. The statement of the relevant goal in the strategic plan reads: "Develop, for research purposes, new ways of classifying mental disorders based on dimensions of observable behavior and neurobiological measures." Due to the novel approach that RDoC takes to conceptualizing and studying mental disorders, it has received widespread attention, well beyond the borders of the immediate research community. This review discusses the rationale for the experimental framework that RDoC has adopted, and its implications for the nosology of mental disorders in the future.

The scale of the problem

Psychiatry ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca McKnight ◽  
Jonathan Price ◽  
John Geddes
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Well Being ◽  
World Health ◽  
The Social ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Health Organization

One in four individuals suffer from a psychiatric disorder at some point in their life, with 15– 20 per cent fitting cri­teria for a mental disorder at any given time. The latter corresponds to around 450 million people worldwide, placing mental disorders as one of the leading causes of global morbidity. Mental health problems represent five of the ten leading causes of disability worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in mid 2016 that ‘the global cost of mental illness is £651 billion per year’, stating that the equivalent of 50 million working years was being lost annually due to mental disorders. The financial global impact is clearly vast, but on a smaller scale, the social and psychological impacts of having a mental dis­order on yourself or your family are greater still. It is often difficult for the general public and clin­icians outside psychiatry to think of mental health dis­orders as ‘diseases’ because it is harder to pinpoint a specific pathological cause for them. When confronted with this view, it is helpful to consider that most of medicine was actually founded on this basis. For ex­ample, although medicine has been a profession for the past 2500 years, it was only in the late 1980s that Helicobacter pylori was linked to gastric/ duodenal ul­cers and gastric carcinoma, or more recently still that the BRCA genes were found to be a cause of breast cancer. Still much of clinical medicine treats a patient’s symptoms rather than objective abnormalities. The WHO has given the following definition of mental health:… Mental health is defined as a state of well- being in which every individual realizes his or her own po­tential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community.… This is a helpful definition, because it clearly defines a mental disorder as a condition that disrupts this state in any way, and sets clear goals of treatment for the clinician. It identifies the fact that a disruption of an individual’s mental health impacts negatively not only upon their enjoyment and ability to cope with life, but also upon that of the wider community.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document