Cited by 52Mental Health Research TopicsMental Health and PsychiatryFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

A complex network approach to clinical science

Hofmann, Stefan G., Curtiss, Joshua·2018·European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Contemporary classification systems assume that psychiatric disorders are expressions of latent disease entities. However, some critics point to the comorbidity problem and other issues that question the validity of the latent disease model. An alternative to this traditional view is the complex network approach. This approach assumes that disorders exist as systems of inter‐connected elements, without requiring that the elements are expressions of latent disease entities. Depending on the structure of the network, change can occur abruptly once the network reaches a tipping point. A dynamic complex network approach could be used to develop a functional analytic case conceptualization that may predict treatment change, relapse and recovery, thereby linking nosology and treatment. In conclusion, the complex network perspective offers an alternative and less restrictive approach to the latent disease model, while offering exciting new directions for future research in psychiatry.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/eci.12986

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Instead of a monocausal latent disease model for understanding illnesses, a network approach is recommended, conceptualizing mental illness from a multicausal network of interacting symptoms and associated processes, where specific syndromes are the result of dynamically self-reinforcing clusters.

    “Instead of a monocausal latent disease model for understanding illnesses, a network approach is recommended, conceptualizing mental illness from a multicausal network of interacting symptoms and associated processes, where specific syndromes are the result of dynamically self-reinforcing clusters [120, 121].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hofmann, S. G., & Curtiss, J.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Hofmann, Stefan G.
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Investigation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07-05
Volume
48
Issue
8
Pages
e12986-e12986
ISSN
  • 0014-2972 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2362
OpenAlex
W2808769647
Cited by
52
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Investigation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
  • National Institutes of Health (R01AT007257, R01MH099021, U01MH108168)
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
complex networks, psychiatric classification, psychiatric comorbidity, tipping points, recurrence prediction, treatment response prediction, recovery prediction, network dynamics
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychiatry, Psychology, Clinical, Biomedical 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