Cited by 46Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentSchizophrenia research and treatmentPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Do the Trajectories of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia Follow a Universal Staging Model?

Open access
Duffy, Anne, Malhi, Gin S., Grof, Paul·2017·The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to address the question of whether a universal staging model of severe psychiatric disorders is a viable direction for future research by examining the extant literature. Method: A narrative review was conducted of the relevant historical, conceptual, and empirical literature pertaining to the clinical trajectory of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and issues relevant to staging. Results: There is substantive evidence that classic recurrent bipolar disorder is separable from schizophrenia on the basis of family history, developmental and clinical course, treatment response, and neurobiological findings. However, because of the intrinsic heterogeneity of diagnostic categories that has been amplified by recent changes in psychiatric taxonomy, key distinctions between the groups have become obfuscated. While mapping risk and illness markers to emerging psychopathology is a logical approach and may be of value for some psychiatric disorders and/or their clinical subtypes, robust evidence supporting identifiable stages per se is still lacking. Presently, even rudimentary stages such as prodromes cannot be meaningfully applied across different disorders and no commonalities can be found for the basis of universal staging. Conclusions: Advances in the prediction of risk, accurate early illness detection, and tailored intervention will require mapping biomarkers and other risk indicators to reliable clinical phases of illness progression. Given the capricious nature of mood and psychotic disorders, this task is likely to yield success only if conducted in narrowly defined subgroups of individuals at high risk for specific illnesses. This approach is diametrically opposite to that being promulgated by proponents of a universal staging model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0706743716649189

Cites

102 of 102 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duffy, A., Malhi, G. S., & Grof, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Duffy, Anne
Venue
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2016-07-09
Volume
62
Issue
2
Pages
115-122
ISSN
  • 0706-7437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1497-0015
OpenAlex
W2429007347
Cited by
46
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
7.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, disease staging, clinical trajectories, prodromal symptoms, psychiatric classification, diagnostic heterogeneity, risk biomarkers, early illness detection, mood disorders, psychosis, disease progression
MeSH terms
Bipolar Disorder, Humans, Schizophrenia, Disease Progression, Prodromal Symptoms

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