Cited by 587Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryBipolar Disorder and Treatment

The Kraepelinian dichotomy – going, going … but still not gone

Open access
Craddock, Nick, Owen, Michael J.·2010·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Summary: Recent genetic studies reinforce the view that current approaches to the diagnosis and classification of major psychiatric illness are inadequate. These findings challenge the distinction between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and suggest that more attention should be given to the relationship between the functional psychoses and neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. We are entering a transitional period of several years during which psychiatry will need to move from using traditional descriptive diagnoses to clinical entities (categories and/or dimensions) that relate more closely to the underlying workings of the brain.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.073429

Cites

32 of 32 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?

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
Craddock, N., & Owen, M. J.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Craddock, Nick
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2010-02
Volume
196
Issue
2
Pages
92-95
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2139870060
Cited by
587
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 60
FWCI
35.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Cardiff University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
Kraepelinian dichotomy, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, functional psychoses, neurodevelopmental disorders, autism spectrum disorder, psychiatric diagnosis, classification of mental illness, genetic evidence
MeSH terms
Autistic Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Humans, Models, Psychological, Schizophrenia, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

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