Clinical science and biomarkers: against RDoC

Conceptual endophenotypes: A strategy to advance the impact of psychoneuroendocrinology in precision medicine

Psychobiological research has generated a tremendous amount of findings on the psychological, neuroendocrine, molecular and environmental processes that are directly relevant for mental and physical health, but have overwhelmed our capacity to meaningfully absorb, integrate, and utilize this knowledge base. Here, we reflect about suitable strategies to improve the translational success of psychoneuroendocrinological research in the era of precision medicine. Following a strategy advocated by the National Research Council and the tradition of endophenotype-based research, we advance here a new approach, termed "conceptual endophenotypes". We define the contextual and formal criteria of conceptual endophenotypes, outline criteria for filtering and selecting information, and describe how conceptual endophenotypes can be validated and implemented at the bedside. As proof-of-concept, we describe some of our findings from research that has adopted this approach in the context of stress-related disorders. We argue that conceptual endophenotypes engineer a bridge between the bench and the bedside. This approach readily lends itself to being continuously developed and implemented. Recent methodological advances, including digital phenotyping, machine learning, grassroots collaboration, and a learning healthcare system, may accelerate the development and implementation of this conceptual endophenotype approach.

Research Domain Criteria as Psychiatric Nosology

Diagnostic classification systems in psychiatry have continued to rely on clinical phenomenology, despite limitations inherent in that approach. In view of these limitations and recent progress in neuroscience, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has initiated the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project to develop a more neuroscientifically based system of characterizing and classifying psychiatric disorders. The RDoC initiative aims to transform psychiatry into an integrative science of psychopathology in which mental illnesses will be defined as involving putative dysfunctions in neural nodes and networks. However, conceptual, methodological, neuroethical, and social issues inherent in and/or derived from the use of RDoC need to be addressed before any attempt is made to implement their use in clinical psychiatry. This article describes current progress in RDoC; defines key technical, neuroethical, and social issues generated by RDoC adoption and use; and posits key questions that must be addressed and resolved if RDoC are to be employed for psychiatric diagnoses and therapeutics. Specifically, we posit that objectivization of complex mental phenomena may raise ethical questions about autonomy, the value of subjective experience, what constitutes normality, what constitutes a disorder, and what represents a treatment, enablement, and/or enhancement. Ethical issues may also arise from the (mis)use of biomarkers and phenotypes in predicting and treating mental disorders, and what such definitions, predictions, and interventions portend for concepts and views of sickness, criminality, professional competency, and social functioning. Given these issues, we offer that a preparatory neuroethical framework is required to define and guide the ways in which RDoC-oriented research can—and arguably should—be utilized in clinical psychiatry, and perhaps more broadly, in the social sphere.

Personalized medicine in psychiatry

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine is a model in which a patient's unique clinical, genetic, and environmental characteristics are the basis for treatment and prevention. Aim, method, and results: This review aims to describe the current tools, phenomenological features, clinical risk factors, and biomarkers used to provide personalized medicine. Furthermore, this study describes the target areas in which they can be applied including diagnostics, treatment selection and response, assessment of risk of side-effects, and prevention.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Personalized medicine in psychiatry is challenged by the current taxonomy, where the diagnostic categories are broad and great biological heterogeneity exists within each category. There is, thus, a gap between the current advanced research prospects and clinical practice, and the current taxonomy is, thus, a poor basis for biological research. The discussion proposes possible solutions to narrow this gap and to move psychiatric research forward towards personalized medicine.