Cited by 7,067Mental Health and PsychiatryMental Health Research TopicsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders

Open access
Insel, Thomas, Cuthbert, Bruce, Garvey, Marjorie, Heinssen, Robert, Pine, Daniel S., Quinn, Kevin, Sanislow, Charles, Wang, Philip·2010·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Self-archived author copy of a scholarly work originally published in American Journal of Psychiatry (2010), made available through Wesleyan University's digital collections.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • RDoC does not directly cover NSRP because it emphasizes more molecular components.

    “alternative nosological systems that are showing promise, such as the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC; Insel et al., 2010) initiative at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), also do not directly address NSRP phenomena given their focus on more molecular components (e.g., attention, working memory, learning processes), which are likely constituent mechanisms of NSRP but not specific to it”

    From What, me worry and ruminate about dsm-5 and rdoc? The importance of targeting negative self-referential processing (2013) · cites this paper as Insel et al., 2010

    The RDoC framework discussion (Am J Psychiatry 167:7, July 2010) identifies neural circuitry as its primary focus and includes working memory as an example, supporting the claim that RDoC examines constituent mechanisms. But the paper does not discuss NSRP or say whether RDoC directly addresses it. It also includes individual, family, and social-context levels, so the claim's characterization of its focus as molecular is too narrow. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ED has been included in the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework as a core dimension in understanding psychopathology.

    “As a result, ED has been included in the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework as a core dimension in understanding psychopathology [38].”

    From Emotional Dysregulation and Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome: Exploring Their Relationship Through the Lens of Twin Studies (2025) · cites this paper as [38]

    In the RDoC framework discussion (Am J Psychiatry 167:7, July 2010; page not specified), the paper gives negative emotionality as an example of a broad domain of function. It does not identify ED (emotional dysregulation) as an included construct or a core dimension, so the more specific claim is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The assumption that mental problems reflect the expression of a latent disease entity has dominated psychiatric nosology.

    “The assumption that mental problems reflect the expression of a latent disease entity has dominated psychiatric nosology, with the distinction being one of tactics, whether it is using psychoanalytic principles as in the early days of the DSM, or identifying syndromes, or developmental neurobiology as in the case of the Research Domain Criteria 124 .”

    From “Third-wave” cognitive and behavioral therapies and the emergence of a process-based approach to intervention in psychiatry (2021) · cites this paper as [124]

    In the RDoC assumptions section (Am J Psychiatry 167:7, July 2010; page not specified in our copy), the paper conceptualizes mental illnesses as brain-circuit disorders, supporting the claim as applied to RDoC. It does not establish that a latent-disease assumption dominated psychiatric nosology historically or describe early DSM psychoanalytic principles as an instance of that assumption. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The DSM-5 is going to place emphasis on psychopathological dimensions, and this may be a useful step forward.

    “The DSM-5 is going to place emphasis on psychopathological dimensions, and this may be a useful step forward (72).”

    From Pediatric psychopharmacology: Too much or too little? (2013) · cites this paper as [72]

    The RDoC discussion (Am J Psychiatry 167:7, July 2010; page not specified in our copy) advocates studying the full range of psychopathological dimensions and suggests this could help identify intervention thresholds. It does not say that DSM-5 is going to emphasize those dimensions; its dimensional proposal concerns RDoC research. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), in its Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework matrix, has recently proposed the incorporation of a new Sensorimotor Systems domain, composed of subconstructs such as Motor Actions, Agency and Ownership and Habits.

    “The National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), in its Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework matrix [76 -79], has recently proposed the incorporation of a new Sensorimotor Systems domain, composed of sub­ constructs such as Motor Actions, Agency and Ownership and Habits [80 -82]”

    From Habit as a therapeutic component in psychological treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomised controlled feasibility study. (2026) · cites this paper as [77]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Sanislow, C., & Wang, P.
Affiliations
National Institute of Mental Health (US)
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2010-07-01
Volume
167
Issue
7
Pages
748-751
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W1977465442
Cited by
7,067
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 457 · 2025: 438 · 2024: 603 · 2023: 483 · 2022: 510 · 2021: 600 · 2020: 645 · 2019: 597 · 2018: 520 · 2017: 529 · 2016: 452 · 2015: 478 · 2014: 315 · 2013: 228 · 2012: 117
FWCI
1123.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Wesleyan University Digital Collections (Wesleyan University) (submittedVersion)
  • Wesleyan University Digital Collections (Wesleyan University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • WESLEYAN
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
Research Domain Criteria, mental illness, classification framework, psychiatric classification, dimensional classification, mental health research
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.), United States, 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