Cited by 180Mental Health and PsychiatryMental Health Research TopicsPsychology and Mental Health

Charting the landscape of priority problems in psychiatry, part 1: classification and diagnosis

Open access
Stephan, Klaas E, Bach, Dominik R, Fletcher, Paul C, Flint, Jonathan, Frank, Michael J, Friston, Karl J, Heinz, Andreas, Huys, Quentin J M +9 more·2016·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

Contemporary psychiatry faces major challenges. Its syndrome-based disease classification is not based on mechanisms and does not guide treatment, which largely depends on trial and error. The development of therapies is hindered by ignorance of potential beneficiary patient subgroups. Neuroscientific and genetics research have yet to affect disease definitions or contribute to clinical decision making. In this challenging setting, what should psychiatric research focus on? In two companion papers, we present a list of problems nominated by clinicians and researchers from different disciplines as candidates for future scientific investigation of mental disorders. These problems are loosely grouped into challenges concerning nosology and diagnosis (this Personal View) and problems related to pathogenesis and aetiology (in the companion Personal View). Motivated by successful examples in other disciplines, particularly the list of Hilbert's problems in mathematics, this subjective and eclectic list of priority problems is intended for psychiatric researchers, helping to re-focus existing research and providing perspectives for future psychiatric science.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00361-2

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Enduring dyshomoeostasis induces high-order beliefs about lack of control and low self-efficacy.

    “This leads us to a key hypothesis of this paper—that “enduring dyshomoeostasis induces high-order beliefs about lack of control and low self-efficacy” (Stephan et al., 2016a).”
  • Differential diagnosis could be implemented formally by model selection, evaluating the evidence of different models that assume a disturbance at different branches and are fitted to electrophysiological or fMRI data from an individual patient.

    “In our approach, such differential diagnosis could be implemented formally by model selection, i.e., evaluating the evidence of different models that assume a disturbance at different branches and are fitted to electrophysiological or fMRI data from an individual patient (cf. Stephan et al., 2016a).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stephan, K. E., Bach, D. R., Fletcher, P. C., Flint, J., Frank, M. J., Friston, K. J., Heinz, A., Huys, Q. J. M., Owen, M. J., Binder, E. B., Dayan, P., Johnstone, E. C., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Montague, P. R., Schnyder, U., Wang, X.-J., & Breakspear, M.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • New York University Shanghai (CN)
Corresponding author
Stephan, Klaas E
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
77-83
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135748590
Cited by
180
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 1
FWCI
44.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1037196)
  • Wellcome Trust (503147)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1617)
  • Medical Research Council (G0800509, G0801418)
  • Gatsby Charitable Foundation
  • German Ministry of Research and Education
  • EU Horizon 2020
  • EU FP7
  • ERC (281338)
  • Innovative Medicine Initiative program
  • Prix Robert de Spoelberch
  • National Institutes of Health (R01MH062349)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014–13–1-0297)
  • NHMRC (APP1037196)
  • René and Susanne Braginsky Foundation
  • University of Zurich
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
Keywords
psychiatric classification, psychiatric diagnosis, disease classification, pathogenesis, etiology of mental disorders, research priorities, Hilbert's problems, patient subgroups
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychiatry, Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review