Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Best matches for Research Domain Criteria (RDoC):

Search results

Items: 1 to 20 of 50

  • Filters activated: Field: Title Word. Clear all
1.
Front Psychol. 2018 Dec 21;9:2502. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02502. eCollection 2018.

Auditory and Visual Statistical Learning Are Not Related to ADHD Symptomatology: Evidence From a Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Approach.

Parks KMA1,2, Stevenson RA1,2,3,4,5.

Author information

1
Department of Psychology, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
2
Brain and Mind Institute, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
3
Program in Neuroscience, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
4
Department of Psychiatry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
5
Centre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Abstract

Statistical learning is an implicit process that allows individuals to track and predict incoming events from their environment. Given that information is highly structured over time, events become predictable, allowing these individuals to make better sense of their environment. Among the studies that have examined statistical learning in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), findings have been mixed. Our goal was to examine whether increased ADHD symptomatology related to decreased auditory and visual statistical learning abilities. To investigate this, we examined the entire range of ADHD symptomatology using a Research Domain Criteria approach with a clinically reliable questionnaire in addition to well-established auditory and visual statistical learning paradigms. Total ADHD symptomatology was not related to auditory and visual statistical learning. An identical pattern emerged when inattention and hyperactivity components were separated, indicating that neither of these distinct behavioral symptoms of ADHD are related to statistical learning abilities. Findings from the current study converge with other studies but go beyond finding a lack of a significant relationship - through Bayesian analyses, these data provide novel evidence directly supporting the hypothesis that ADHD symptomatology and statistical learning are decoupled. This finding held for overall levels of ADHD symptomatology as well as the subdomains of inattention and hyperactivity, suggesting that the ability to pick up on patterns in both auditory and visual domains is intact in ADHD. Future work should consider investigating statistical learning in ADHD across ages and beyond auditory and visual domains.

KEYWORDS:

auditory; hyperactivity; inattention; statistical learning; visual

2.
Ir J Psychol Med. 2018 Jun;35(2):89-94. doi: 10.1017/ipm.2017.7.

Dimensional thinking in psychiatry in the era of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).

Author information

1
1Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioural Science,University College Cork,Cork,Ireland.
2
2APC Microbiome Institute,University College Cork,Cork,Ireland.

Abstract

The biological mechanisms underlying psychiatric diagnoses are not well defined. Clinical diagnosis based on categorical systems exhibit high levels of heterogeneity and co-morbidity. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) attempts to reconceptualize psychiatric disorders into transdiagnostic functional dimensional constructs based on neurobiological measures and observable behaviour. By understanding the underlying neurobiology and pathophysiology of the relevant processes, the RDoC aims to advance biomarker development for disease prediction and treatment response. This important evolving dimensional framework must also consider environmental factors. Emerging evidence suggests that gut microbes (microbiome) play a physiological role in brain diseases by modulating neuroimmune, neuroendocrine and neural signalling pathways between the gut and the brain. The integration of the gut microbiome signature as an additional dimensional component of the RDoC may enhance precision psychiatry.

KEYWORDS:

Psychiatric diagnosis; Research Domain Criteria; categorical diagnosis; microbiome

3.
Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment. 2018 Jun 22. pii: S1888-9891(18)30041-7. doi: 10.1016/j.rpsm.2018.04.002. [Epub ahead of print]

Translational research in psychiatry: The Research Domain Criteria Project (RDoC).

[Article in English, Spanish]

Author information

1
Departamento de Ciencias Experimentales y de la Salud, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, España; Instituto de Neuropsiquiatría y Adicciones, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, España.
2
Instituto de Neuropsiquiatría y Adicciones, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, España; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Madrid, España.
3
Departamento de Ciencias Experimentales y de la Salud, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, España; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, España; Grupo de Investigación en Servicios Sanitarios, Instituto Hospital del Mar de Investigaciones Médicas (IMIM), Barcelona, España.
4
Bloque Obstétrico, Hospitalización de obstetricia, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón (HUFA), Madrid, España.
5
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, España; Grupo de Investigación en Servicios Sanitarios, Instituto Hospital del Mar de Investigaciones Médicas (IMIM), Barcelona, España.
6
Instituto de Neuropsiquiatría y Adicciones, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, España; Departament de Psiquiatria i Medicina Forense, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, España.
7
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, España; Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Esplugues de Llobregat, España.
8
Departamento de Ciencias Experimentales y de la Salud, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, España; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, España; Grupo de Investigación en Servicios Sanitarios, Instituto Hospital del Mar de Investigaciones Médicas (IMIM), Barcelona, España. Electronic address: cgarcia@imim.es.

Abstract

Despite the consensus achieved in the homogenization of clinical criteria by categorical psychiatric classification systems (DEM and CIE), they are criticized for a lack of validity and inability to guide clinical treatment and research. In this review article we introduce the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework as an alternative framework for translational research in psychiatry. The RDOC framework systematizes both research targets and methodology for research in psychiatry. RDoC is based on a catalogue of neurobiological and neurocognitive evidence of behaviour, and conceives psychopathology as the phenotypic expression of alterations of functional domains that are classified into 5psychobiological systems. The RdoC framework also proposes that domains must be validated with evidence in 7levels of analysis: genes, molecules, cells, nerve circuits, physiology, behaviour and self-reports. As opposed to categorical systems focused on diagnosis, RDoC focuses on the study of psychopathology as a correlate of detectable functional, biological and behavioural disruption of normal processes. In order to build a useful psychiatric nosology for guiding clinical interventions, the RDoC research framework links the neurobiological basis of mental processes with phenotypical manifestations. Although the RDoC findings have not yet been articulated into a specific model for guiding clinical practice, they provide a useful transition system for creating clinical, basic and epidemiological research hypotheses.

KEYWORDS:

Diagnóstico psiquiátrico; Epidemiología psiquiátrica; Indirect measures; Medidas indirectas; Mental disorders; Neurociencia; Neuroscience; Psychiatric diagnosis; Psychiatric epidemiology; Trastornos mentales

4.
J Affect Disord. 2018 Oct 1;238:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.005. Epub 2018 May 26.

Mapping depression rating scale phenotypes onto research domain criteria (RDoC) to inform biological research in mood disorders.

Author information

1
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
2
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: mfrye@mayo.edu.
3
Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Texas Tech University, Health Sciences Center, Permian Basin, TX, USA.
4
Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
5
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
6
Department of Molecular Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
7
Department of Psychiatry, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
8
Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Substantial research progress can be achieved if available clinical datasets can be mapped to the National Institute of Mental Health Research-Domain-Criteria (RDoC) constructs. This mapping would allow investigators to both explore more narrowly defined clinical phenotypes and the relationship of these phenotypes to biological markers and clinical outcomes approximating RDoC criteria.

METHODS:

Using expert review and consensus, we defined four major depression phenotypes based on specific RDoC constructs. Having matched these constructs to individual items from the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, we identified subjects meeting criteria for each of these phenotypes from two large clinical trials of patients treated for major depression. In a post hoc analysis, we evaluated the overall treatment response based on the phenotypes: Core Depression (CD), Anxiety (ANX), and Neurovegetative Symptoms of Melancholia (NVSM) and Atypical Depression (NVSAD).

RESULTS:

The phenotypes were prevalent (range 10.5-52.4%, 50% reduction range 51.9-82.9%) and tracked with overall treatment response. Although the CD phenotype was associated with lower rates of remission in both cohorts, this was mainly driven by baseline symptom severity. However, when controlling for baseline severity, patients with the ANX phenotype had a significantly lower rate of remission.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of replication between the studies of the phenotypes' treatment prediction value reflects important variability across studies that may limit generalizability.

CONCLUSION:

Further work evaluating biological markers associated with these phenotypes is needed for further RDoC concept development.

KEYWORDS:

Anxiety; Core depression; Major depressive disorder; Neurovegetative symptoms of melancholia and atypical depression; Research domain criteria

PMID:
29807322
DOI:
10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.005
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Elsevier Science
5.
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017 Sep;18(2):72-145. doi: 10.1177/1529100617727266.

Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).

Author information

1
1 Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame.
2
2 Research Domain Criteria Unit, National Institute of Mental Health.
3
3 Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
4
4 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of New Mexico School of Medicine.
5
5 Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization.
6
6 Global Mental Health Program, Columbia University Medical Center.

Abstract

The diagnosis of mental disorder initially appears relatively straightforward: Patients present with symptoms or visible signs of illness; health professionals make diagnoses based primarily on these symptoms and signs; and they prescribe medication, psychotherapy, or both, accordingly. However, despite a dramatic expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their components and processes remains rudimentary. We provide histories and descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Two major diagnostic manuals-the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-provide classification systems relevant to public health, clinical diagnosis, service provision, and specific research applications, the former internationally and the latter primarily for the United States. In contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria provides a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorder. We identify four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. We discuss how the three systems' approaches to these key issues correspond or diverge as a result of their different histories, purposes, and constituencies. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, they share the goal of reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder.

KEYWORDS:

DSM; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; ICD; International Classification of Diseases; RDoC; Research Domain Criteria; classification; diagnosis; mental disorder

PMID:
29211974
DOI:
10.1177/1529100617727266
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Atypon
6.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2018 Aug;64:87-98. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.008. Epub 2017 Oct 9.

The stress-reward-mentalizing model of depression: An integrative developmental cascade approach to child and adolescent depressive disorder based on the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) approach.

Author information

1
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium; Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL (University College London), UK. Electronic address: patrick.luyten@ppw.kuleuven.be.
2
Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL (University College London), UK.

Abstract

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) propose a much-needed change in approach to the study of vulnerability factors implicated in mental disorders, shifting away from a categorical, disease-oriented model to a dimensional approach that focuses on underlying systems implicated in psychopathology. In this paper we illustrate this approach with a focus on the emergence of depression in childhood and adolescence. Based on evolutionary biological and developmental psychopathology considerations, we present an integrative developmental cascade model of depression that essentially suggests that depression emerges out of a three-pronged series of interacting impairments in the domains of stress regulation, reward, and mentalizing. We discuss the relation of these impairments to the five domains proposed by RDoC. We also focus on how this model may explain in large part the marked comorbidity of depression with other psychiatric disorders, as well as with functional somatic and somatic disorders. Limitations of this theoretical approach are discussed, as well as implications for the development, evaluation, and dissemination of interventions aimed at preventing or treating depression.

Publication type

Publication type

7.
Depress Anxiety. 2018 Jan;35(1):65-88. doi: 10.1002/da.22686. Epub 2017 Oct 24.

Understanding suicide risk within the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework: A meta-analytic review.

Author information

1
Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.
2
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
3
Department of Psychology, Columbia University Teachers College, New York City, NY, USA.
4
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The field is in need of novel and transdiagnostic risk factors for suicide. The National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) provides a framework that may help advance research on suicidal behavior.

METHOD:

We conducted a meta-analytic review of existing prospective risk and protective factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors (ideation, attempts, and deaths) that fall within one of the five RDoC domains or relate to a prominent suicide theory. Predictors were selected from a database of 4,082 prospective risk and protective factors for suicide outcomes.

RESULTS:

A total of 460 predictors met inclusion criteria for this meta-analytic review and most examined risk (vs. protective) factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. The overall effect of risk factors was statistically significant, but relatively small, in predicting suicide ideation (weighted mean odds ratio: wOR = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.59-1.87), suicide attempt (wOR = 1.66 [1.57-1.76), and suicide death (wOR = 1.41 [1.24-1.60]). Across all suicide outcomes, most risk factors related to the Negative Valence Systems domain, although effect sizes were of similar magnitude across RDoC domains.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study demonstrated that the RDoC framework provides a novel and promising approach to suicide research; however, relatively few studies of suicidal behavior fit within this framework. Future studies must go beyond the "usual suspects" of suicide risk factors (e.g., mental disorders, sociodemographics) to understand the processes that combine to lead to this deadly outcome.

KEYWORDS:

Research Domain Criteria; meta-analysis; risk factor; suicide; suicide attempts

PMID:
29064611
PMCID:
PMC5760472
DOI:
10.1002/da.22686
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
Icon for Wiley Icon for PubMed Central
8.
Prog Brain Res. 2017;235:177-218. doi: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.08.002. Epub 2017 Sep 28.

Using the research domain criteria (RDoC) to conceptualize impulsivity and compulsivity in relation to addiction.

Author information

1
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Electronic address: drsamanthabrooks@gmail.com.
2
US/UCT MRC Unit on Anxiety & Stress Disorders, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
3
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
4
US/UCT MRC Unit on Anxiety & Stress Disorders, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Abstract

Nomenclature for mental disorder was updated in 2013 with the publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5). In DSM-5, substance use disorders are framed as more dimensional. First, the distinction between abuse and dependence is replaced by substance use. Second, the addictions section now covers both substances and behavioral addictions. This contemporary move toward dimensionality and transdiagnosis in the addictions and other disorders embrace accumulating cognitive-affective neurobiological evidence that is reflected in the United States' National Institutes of Health Research Domain Criteria (NIH RDoC). The RDoC calls for the further development of transdiagnostic approaches to psychopathy and includes five domains to improve research. Additionally, the RDoC suggests that these domains can be measured in terms of specific units of analysis. In line with these suggestions, recent publications have stimulated updated neurobiological conceptualizations of two transdiagnostic concepts, namely impulsivity and compulsivity and their interactions that are applicable to addictive disorders. However, there has not yet been a review to examine the constructs of impulsivity and compulsivity in relation to addiction in light of the research-oriented RDoC. By doing so it may become clearer as to whether impulsivity and compulsivity function antagonistically, complementarily or in some other way at the behavioral, cognitive, and neural level and how this relationship underpins addiction. Thus, here we consider research into impulsivity and compulsivity in light of the transdiagnostic RDoC to help better understand these concepts and their application to evidence-based clinical intervention for addiction.

KEYWORDS:

ADHD; Addiction; Compulsivity; Impulsivity; Obsessive–compulsive and related disorders; RDoC

PMID:
29054288
DOI:
10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.08.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Elsevier Science
9.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2017 Aug;38(4):279-294. doi: 10.1007/s11017-017-9416-x.

Symptom modelling can be influenced by psychiatric categories: choices for research domain criteria (RDoC).

Author information

1
Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YL, UK. m.fellowes1@lancaster.ac.uk.
2
Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YF, UK. m.fellowes1@lancaster.ac.uk.

Abstract

Psychiatric researchers typically assume that the modelling of psychiatric symptoms is not influenced by psychiatric categories; symptoms are modelled and then grouped into a psychiatric category. I highlight this primarily through analysing research domain criteria (RDoC). RDoC's importance makes it worth scrutinizing, and this assessment also serves as a case study with relevance for other areas of psychiatry. RDoC takes inadequacies of existing psychiatric categories as holding back causal investigation. Consequently, RDoC aims to circumnavigate existing psychiatric categories by directly investigating the causal basis of symptoms. The unique methodological approach of RDoC exploits the supposed lack of influence of psychiatric categories on symptom modelling, taking psychiatric symptoms as the same regardless of which psychiatric category is employed or if no psychiatric category is employed. But this supposition is not always true. I will show how psychiatric categories can influence symptom modelling, whereby identical behaviours can be considered as different symptoms based on an individual's psychiatric diagnosis. If the modelling of symptoms is influenced by psychiatric categories, then psychiatric categories will still play a role, a situation which RDoC researchers explicitly aim to avoid. I discuss four ways RDoC could address this issue. This issue also has important implications for factor analysis, cluster analysis, modifying psychiatric categories, and symptom based approaches.

KEYWORDS:

DSM; Factor analysis; Psychiatric categories; RDoC; Symptom-based approaches; Symptoms

PMID:
28695475
PMCID:
PMC5522519
DOI:
10.1007/s11017-017-9416-x
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
10.
Clin Psychol Sci. 2017 May;5(3):568-592. doi: 10.1177/2167702616686854. Epub 2017 Apr 26.

Understanding Suicide Risk within the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Framework: Insights, Challenges, and Future Research Considerations.

Author information

1
Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester.
2
Department of Psychology, Columbia University Teachers College.
3
Department of Psychology, Harvard University.

Abstract

Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Prior research has focused primarily on sociodemographic and psychiatric risk factors with little improvement in the prediction or prevention of suicidal behavior over time. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) may be an especially useful framework for advancing research in this area. This paper provides a brief and broad overview of research on suicidal behavior relating to each of the RDoC domains-highlighting the RDoC construct(s) where research has focused, construct(s) where research is lacking, and suggestions for future research directions. We also discuss major challenges for suicide research within the RDoC framework, including the intersection of RDoC domains, interaction of domains with the environment, incorporation of developmental stage, integration of distal and proximal processes, and inclusion of suicide-specific constructs. We conclude by underscoring important considerations for future research aimed at using the RDoC framework to study suicidal behavior and other forms of psychopathology.

KEYWORDS:

Research Domain Criteria; risk factors; suicide; suicide attempt; suicide prevention

11.
Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2018;38:69-91. doi: 10.1007/7854_2017_1.

Integrating NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) into PTSD Research.

Author information

1
Trauma Outpatient Unit and RG Molecular Psychotraumatology, Clinical Department, Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Kraepelinstrasse 10, Munich, 80804, Germany.
2
Department Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center Utrecht, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, The Netherlands. e.vermetten@lumc.nl.
3
Arq Psychotruama Research Group, Diemen, The Netherlands. e.vermetten@lumc.nl.

Abstract

Three and a half decades of research on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has produced substantial knowledge on the pathobiology of this frequent and debilitating disease. However, despite all research efforts, so far no drug that has specifically targeted PTSD core symptoms progressed to clinical use. Instead, although not overly efficient, serotonin re-uptake inhibitors continue to be considered the gold standard of PTSD pharmacotherapy. The psychotherapeutic treatment and symptom-oriented drug therapy options available for PTSD treatment today show some efficacy, although not in all PTSD patients, in particular not in a substantial percent of those suffering from the detrimental sequelae of repeated childhood trauma or in veterans with combat related PTSD. PTSD has this in common with other psychiatric disorders - in particular effective treatment for incapacitating conditions such as resistant major depression, chronic schizophrenia, and frequently relapsing obsessive-compulsive disorder as well as dementia has not yet been developed through modern neuropsychiatric research.In response to this conundrum, the National Institute of Mental Health launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework which aims to leave diagnosis-oriented psychiatric research behind and to move on to the use of research domains overarching the traditional diagnosis systems. To the best of our knowledge, the paper at hand is the first that has systematically assessed the utility of the RDoC system for PTSD research. Here, we review core findings in neurobiological PTSD research and match them to the RDoC research domains and units of analysis. Our synthesis reveals that several core findings in PTSD such as amygdala overactivity have been linked to all RDoC domains without further specification of their distinct role in the pathophysiological pathways associated with these domains. This circumstance indicates that the elucidation of the cellular and molecular processes ultimately decisive for regulation of psychic processes and for the expression of psychopathological symptoms is still grossly incomplete. All in all, we find the RDoC research domains to be useful but not sufficient for PTSD research. Hence, we suggest adding two novel domains, namely stress and emotional regulation and maintenance of consciousness. As both of these domains play a role in various if not in all psychiatric diseases, we judge them to be useful not only for PTSD research but also for psychiatric research in general.

KEYWORDS:

Emotion regulation; Neurobiology; PTSD; RDOC; Research; Stress

12.
Front Cell Neurosci. 2017 Mar 3;11:46. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2017.00046. eCollection 2017.

Six Years of Research on the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Initiative: A Systematic Review.

Author information

1
Departments of Psychology and Psychological Clinical Science, University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada.

Abstract

Six years have passed since the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in the United States launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative. The RDoC introduces a framework for research on the biology of mental illness that integrates research findings across multiple levels of information. The framework outlines constructs that represent specific quantifiable dimensions of behavior (e.g., responses to acute threat, cognitive control) and corresponding units of analysis that can be used to study the constructs, beginning at the levels of genes, molecules, cells, circuits and physiology, and moving up to behaviors and self-reports. In this systematic review, a literature search was conducted to synthesize empirical research published since the proposal of the framework that incorporated the RDoC. Forty-eight peer-reviewed scholarly articles met eligibility criteria for the review. Studies differed according to whether they analyzed RDoC constructs and units of analysis within vs. between clinically-diagnosed and non-psychiatric samples. The most commonly studied constructs were subsumed within the domains of Negative Valence Systems, Positive Valence Systems and Cognitive Systems, providing initial results which primarily connected genetics, brain circuits and physiology research findings with behavior and self-reports. Prospects for future research adopting the RDoC matrix and utilizing a dimensional approach to studying the biology of mental illness are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

brain; cells; circuits and systems; mental disorders; neuroscience; physiology; research domain criteria (RDoC)

Publication type

Publication type

13.
Nervenarzt. 2017 May;88(5):538-548. doi: 10.1007/s00115-017-0284-4.

[Research domain criteria (RDoC) : Psychiatric research as applied cognitive neuroscience].

[Article in German]

Author information

1
Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. henrik.walter@charite.de.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Just before the official launch of the DSM-5 in 2013, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative of the National Institute of Mental Health was made public and is becoming increasingly more important in psychiatric research.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this paper is to clarify the conceptual approach of RDoC, to systematically discuss limitations, to present exemplary RDoC-based studies and to consider the relevance of the RDoC concepts for clinicians and scientists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

The is a qualitative introduction and review article with a critical discussion.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The RDoC initiative was not conceived as an alternative diagnostic manual to DSM-5 or IDC-10/11 for use in clinical practice. It is a new systematic framework for psychiatric research based on the most recent results of cognitive neuroscience and aims to map mental disorders dimensionally and transdiagnostically. Despite some weaknesses, it is currently the most elaborated and scientifically grounded approach for multidisciplinary research on mental disorders. In contrast to the purely symptom-based DSM and ICD approaches, which are agnostic with respect to the pathogenesis of mental diseases, the explicit aim of the RDoC initiative is to systematize biological knowledge about risk factors and causes of mental disorders; therefore, it has a much greater potential to develop new and individualized therapeutic strategies based on disease mechanisms.

KEYWORDS:

Biological psychiatry; Classification; Cognitive neuroscience; Mental disorders; Neuroimaging

PMID:
28188401
DOI:
10.1007/s00115-017-0284-4
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Springer
14.
J Affect Disord. 2017 Jul;216:30-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.011. Epub 2016 Dec 16.

Research domain criteria (RDoC) grows up: Strengthening neurodevelopment investigation within the RDoC framework.

Author information

1
Northwestern University, Department of Psychology, 2029 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA; Northwestern University, Department of Psychiatry, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research, Evanston, IL, USA; Northwestern University, Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL, USA; Northwestern University, Institute for Innovations in Developmental Sciences, Evanston, IL, USA. Electronic address: vijay.mittal@northwestern.edu.
2
Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research, Evanston, IL, USA; Northwestern University, Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL, USA; Northwestern University, Institute for Innovations in Developmental Sciences, Evanston, IL, USA.
PMID:
28010957
PMCID:
PMC5471127
DOI:
10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.011
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
15.
J Clin Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;78(4):423-432. doi: 10.4088/JCP.15nr10476.

Potential Applications of the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) to Clinical Psychiatric Practice: How RDoC Might Be Used in Assessment, Diagnostic Processes, Case Formulation, Treatment Planning, and Clinical Notes.

Author information

1
Department of Psychiatry, MC A011-04, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 East 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045. joel.yager@ucdenver.edu.
2
Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.

Abstract

Offering a new framework for understanding and studying basic dimensions of normal and abnormal human functioning and mental disorders, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has initiated the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project in which a series of higher order domains, representing major systems of emotion, cognition, motivation, and social behavior, and their constituent operationally defined constructs serve as organizing templates for further research and inquiry, eg, to discover validated biomarkers and endophenotypes. Cutting across traditional DSM diagnoses, the domains are defined as Negative Valence Systems, Positive Valence Systems, Cognitive Systems, Systems for Social Processes, and Arousal/Regulatory Systems. To inform educators, trainees, and practitioners about RDoC, alert them to potential practical applications, and encourage their broad exploration in clinical settings, this article reviews the RDoC domains and their subsystem constructs with regard to potential current clinical considerations and applications. We describe ways in which the RDoC domains and constructs offer transdiagnostic frameworks for complementing traditional practice; suggest clinical questions to help elucidate salient information; and, translating RDoC domains and constructs headings into clinically friendly language, offer a template for the psychiatric review of systems that can serve in clinical notes.

PMID:
28002661
DOI:
10.4088/JCP.15nr10476
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
16.
J Affect Disord. 2017 Jul;216:78-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.018. Epub 2016 Oct 20.

Empirically supported psychological treatments and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).

Author information

1
Fordham University, United States. Electronic address: mckay@fordham.edu.
2
The Institute of Living, Yale University School of Medicine, United States.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) has been developed as an alternative approach to studying psychiatric disorders. The RDoC constructs and units of analysis, from genes up through paradigms, are intended to describe a hierarchy of priority measurements. Several of these have been investigated in the context of empirically-supported treatments, as either moderators or mediators of outcome.

METHOD:

This review considers the available research on the moderating and mediating role of genes, molecules, circuits and physiology in cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) outcome studies for negative valence system conditions.

FINDINGS:

Based on the review, research has aspired to identify candidate genes, molecules, circuits and physiological moderators or mediators of treatment, but no definitive tests have been conducted. Instead, several candidate variables have been found that deserve further investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

The available research is based on diagnoses from the DSM, whereas the RDoC initiative endeavors to determine empirically valid taxonomic signs.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results of this review are discussed in the joint context of developments in empirically-supported psychological therapy and the specific aims of the RDoC initiative, and conclude with recommendations for future research.

KEYWORDS:

Anxiety; Behavioral activation; Circuitry; Cognitive-behavior therapy; Depression; Empirically-supported treatment; Exposure; Genes; Molecules; Negative valence systems; Physiology

PMID:
27836118
DOI:
10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.018
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Elsevier Science
17.
J Affect Disord. 2017 Jul;216:58-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.065. Epub 2016 Oct 28.

Self-report indicators of negative valence constructs within the research domain criteria (RDoC): A critical review.

Author information

1
Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, 118 Haggar Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA. Electronic address: db.watson@nd.edu.
2
Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, 118 Haggar Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In 2010, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) created the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), a research framework for integrating multiple units of information to explicate basic dimensions of functioning underlying both adaptive and maladaptive behavior. Our goal in this review is to evaluate self-report indicators of negative valence systems constructs within RDoC.

METHODS:

We review the content and correlates of several of the most popular self-report measures currently classified within the negative valence systems in the RDoC matrix, using both our own data and previously published results. We use these data to evaluate whether these measures are appropriately placed; in addition, wherever possible, we recommend better alternatives to assess key RDoC constructs.

RESULTS:

Our findings indicate that many of the currently listed self-report measures are misplaced. Specifically, our data reveal that some of the purported fear scales are better conceptualized as measures of anxiety and/or anxious arousal. In addition, none of the currently listed measures of frustrative nonreward is a clear, unambiguous indicator of that construct.

LIMITATIONS:

The RDoC matrix currently does not list any specific measures of either loss or sustained threat, which makes it difficult to identify appropriate measures of these constructs. In many cases, the specificity/discriminant validity of proposed measures remains uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS:

Researchers wanting to include self-report measures of negative valence constructs currently receive little guidance from the RDoC matrix. Future assessment work should be oriented toward the development of measures that are explicitly designed to assess these RDoC constructs.

KEYWORDS:

Anxiety; Fear; Frustrative nonreward; Loss; Research Domain Criteria; Self-report measures

PMID:
27823854
DOI:
10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.065
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Elsevier Science
18.
19.
Bull Menninger Clin. 2016 Summer;80(3):187-212. doi: 10.1521/bumc.2016.80.3.187.

Operationalizing NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) in naturalistic clinical settings.

Author information

1
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
2
The Menninger Clinic, Houston, Texas.
3
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
4
Michael DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas.
5
University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii.
6
University College of London, London, UK.

Abstract

Recently, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) introduced the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative to address two major challenges facing the field of psychiatry: (1) the lack of new effective personalized treatments for psychiatric disorders, and (2) the limitations associated with categorically defined psychiatric disorders. Although the potential of RDoC to revolutionize personalized psychiatric medicine and psychiatric nosology has been acknowledged, it is unclear how to implement RDoC in naturalistic clinical settings as part of routine outcomes research. In this article, the authors present the major RDoC principles and then show how these principles are operationalized in The Menninger Clinic's McNair Initiative for Neuroscience Discovery-Menninger & Baylor College of Medicine (MIND-MB) study. The authors discuss how RDoC-informed outcomes-based assessment in clinical settings can transform personalized clinical care through multimodal treatments.

PMID:
27583809
DOI:
10.1521/bumc.2016.80.3.187
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Atypon
20.
Rev Synth. 2016 Dec;137(1-2):117-49. doi: 10.1007/s11873-016-0292-8.

[The Research Domain Criteria (Rdoc), reductionism and clinical psychiatry].

[Article in French]

Author information

1
Département de philosophie, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3P8. Faucher.luc@uqam.ca.
2
Département de philosophie, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3P8.

Abstract

The focus of the advocates of the Research Domain Critria (RDoC) on faulty brain circuits has led some to suspect it of being a reductionist enterprise. And because RDoC will eventually impact clinical psychiatry, some have feared that it will transform clinical psychiatry in a mindless and applied neurobehavioral science. We argue that if RDoC is officially endorsing a kind of reductionism, the particular kind of reductionism it endorses is not suffering from the shortcomings of more classical forms of reductionism. Because of that, at least in principle, RDoC could enrich rather than impoverish clinical psychiatry. This paper raises few potential problems of the RDoC for clinical psychiatry caused by its implicit epistemological reductionism.

KEYWORDS:

Clinical Psychiatry; Conception of mental Disorder; Pluralism; RDoC; Reductionnism

PMID:
27550461
DOI:
10.1007/s11873-016-0292-8
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Icon for Springer

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center