Towards a classification of biomarkers of neuropsychiatric disease: from encompass to compass
Open accessAbstract
There is currently considerable imprecision in the nosology of biomarkers used in the study of neuropsychiatric disease. The neuropsychiatric field lags behind others such as oncology, wherein, rather than using 'biomarker' as a blanket term for a diverse range of clinical phenomena, biomarkers have been actively classified into separate categories, including prognostic and predictive tests. A similar taxonomy is proposed for neuropsychiatric diseases in which the core biology remains relatively unknown. This paper divides potential biomarkers into those of (1) risk, (2) diagnosis/trait, (3) state or acuity, (4) stage, (5) treatment response and (6) prognosis, and provides illustrative exemplars. Of course, biomarkers rely on available technology and, as we learn more about the neurobiological correlates of neuropsychiatric disorders, we will realize that the classification of biomarkers across these six categories can change, and some markers may fit into more than one category.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Cognitive impairment may represent a risk biomarker that may antedate illness onset, a trait marker present in remitted patients, a marker of progression showing greater severity with illness progression, and a state or acuity marker of major depressive disorder.
“Taken together, using the classification proposed by Davis et al. [44], these studies suggest that cognitive impairment may represent a risk biomarker that may even antedate illness onset, a trait marker present in remitted patients, a marker of progression showing greater severity with illness progression, and a state or acuity marker of MDD, with more marked effects on acutely ill individuals.”
From Cognitive remission: a novel objective for the treatment of major depression? (2016) · cites this paper as [44]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 10 · Cited by 123
- Authors
- Davis, J., Maes, M., Andreazza, A., McGrath, J. J., Tye, S. J., & Berk, M.
- Affiliations
- Barwon Health (AU)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Davis, J
- Venue
- Molecular Psychiatry
- Published
- 2014-10-28
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 152-153
- ISSN
- 1359-4184 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5578
- OpenAlex
- W2071406308
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 12.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Locations
- Molecular Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
- Keywords
- biomarkers, neuropsychiatric disorders, biomarker classification, disease classification, risk biomarkers, diagnostic biomarkers, prognostic factors, treatment response biomarkers, disease stage
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Humans, Biomarkers
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
