CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 367Mental Health Research TopicsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major Depression

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Problematic assumptions have slowed down depression research: why symptoms, not syndromes are the way forward

Open access
Fried, Eiko I.·2015·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00309PMC PMC4369644
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Major depression (MD) is a highly heterogeneous diagnostic category. Diverse symptoms such as sad mood, anhedonia, and fatigue are routinely added to an unweighted sum-score, and cutoffs are used to distinguish between depressed participants and healthy controls. Researchers then investigate outcome variables like MD risk factors, biomarkers, and treatment response in such samples. These practices presuppose that (1) depression is a discrete condition, and that (2) symptoms are interchangeable indicators of this latent disorder. Here I review these two assumptions, elucidate their historical roots, show how deeply engrained they are in psychological and psychiatric research, and document that they contrast with evidence. Depression is not a consistent syndrome with clearly demarcated boundaries, and depression symptoms are not interchangeable indicators of an underlying disorder. Current research practices lump individuals with very different problems into one category, which has contributed to the remarkably slow progress in key research domains such as the development of efficacious antidepressants or the identification of biomarkers for depression. The recently proposed network framework offers an alternative to the problematic assumptions. MD is not understood as a distinct condition, but as heterogeneous symptom cluster that substantially overlaps with other syndromes such as anxiety disorders. MD is not framed as an underlying disease with a number of equivalent indicators, but as a network of symptoms that have direct causal influence on each other: insomnia can cause fatigue which then triggers concentration and psychomotor problems. This approach offers new opportunities for constructing an empirically based classification system and has broad implications for future research.

Overview

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00309

Cites

125 of 125 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Visualization of a reflective latent variable model. D indicates the latent disorder depression that is modeled as common cause of the observable symptoms s1–s14.
FIGURE 1 Visualization of a reflective latent variable model. D indicates the latent disorder depression that is modeled as common cause of the observable symptoms s1–s14.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Visualization of a longitudinal psychopathological symptom network. Longitudinal network model of the directed associations between depression symptoms s1–s14 (not based on data). Self-loops represent autoregressive effects, edges represent associations among symptoms across time, and line-thickness indicates strength of the associations. Symptoms with a large number of connections are displayed in the center, symptoms with few or weak connections in the periphery.
FIGURE 2 Visualization of a longitudinal psychopathological symptom network. Longitudinal network model of the directed associations between depression symptoms s1–s14 (not based on data). Self-loops represent autoregressive effects, edges represent associations among symptoms across time, and line-thickness indicates strength of the associations. Symptoms with a large number of connections are displayed in the center, symptoms with few or weak connections in the periphery.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 126 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Brooks, 2013, Heroes of uncertainty., New York Times.
  2. Ereshefsky, 2007, Species, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  3. Grebb, 2009, Introduction and considerations for a brain-based diagnostic system in psychiatry, Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 1
  4. Hooper, 2008, Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit., Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods, 6, 53
  5. Insel, 2013, Transforming Diagnosis.
  6. Kupfer, 2013, Field Trial Results Guide DSM Recommendations. Huffingt. Post.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 367

Related

Metadata

Authors
Fried, E. I.
Affiliations
KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Fried, Eiko I.
ORCID
Fried, Eiko I.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2015-03-23
Volume
6
Pages
309-309
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00309
PMC
PMC4369644
OpenAlex
W2168432043
Cited by
367
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 8
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
major depressive disorder, diagnostic heterogeneity, symptom clusters, anhedonia, fatigue, insomnia, biomarkers, antidepressant drug development, anxiety disorders, psychiatric classification, research assumptions

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