Descriptive psychopathology, phenomenology, and the legacy of Karl Jaspers

Precision medicine in complex diseases-Molecular subgrouping for improved prediction and treatment stratification

Complex diseases are caused by a combination of genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors and comprise common noncommunicable diseases, including allergies, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric and metabolic disorders. More than 25% of Europeans suffer from a complex disease, and together these diseases account for 70% of all deaths. The use of genomic, molecular, or imaging data to develop accurate diagnostic tools for treatment recommendations and preventive strategies, and for disease prognosis and prediction, is an important step toward precision medicine. However, for complex diseases, precision medicine is associated with several challenges. There is a significant heterogeneity between patients of a specific disease-both with regards to symptoms and underlying causal mechanisms-and the number of underlying genetic and nongenetic risk factors is often high. Here, we summarize precision medicine approaches for complex diseases and highlight the current breakthroughs as well as the challenges. We conclude that genomic-based precision medicine has been used mainly for patients with highly penetrant monogenic disease forms, such as cardiomyopathies. However, for most complex diseases-including psychiatric disorders and allergies-available polygenic risk scores are more probabilistic than deterministic and have not yet been validated for clinical utility. However, subclassifying patients of a specific disease into discrete homogenous subtypes based on molecular or phenotypic data is a promising strategy for improving diagnosis, prediction, treatment, prevention, and prognosis. The availability of high-throughput molecular technologies, together with large collections of health data and novel data-driven approaches, offers promise toward improved individual health through precision medicine.

Excursions in Rorschachlandia: Surveying the scientific and philosophical landscape of Hermann Rorschach's Psychodiagnostics

This article examines the milieu of Hermann Rorschach's Psychodiagnostics (1921/2021) under development between 1911 and his death in 1922 and explores new evidence about the direction Rorschach's test might have taken after publication of Psychodiagnostics. This includes direct and indirect influences from turn of the century continental philosophy and science and innovative colleagues in the Swiss psychiatric and psychoanalytic societies. The availability of newly translated scholarship, including the correspondence between Ludwig Binswanger and Hermann Rorschach following the 1921 publication of Psychodiagnostics, Binswanger's posthumous 1923 commentary in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, and recent new translation of Psychodiagnostics, permits a fresh appraisal of the milieu and foundations of Rorschach's development. Understanding these sources and influences opens new vistas in reappraising the nature of Rorschach's "test theory" which Rorschach considered undeveloped at the time of his death. This paper presents new evidence that, under the influence of Rorschach's close colleague, Ludwig Binswanger, the Geisteswissenschaften and phenomenology might have figured prominently in future developments. The paper concludes that Rorschach, preoccupied with considerations of kinesthetic subjectivity in his innovative conceptualization of human movement responses, was a nascent phenomenologist whose untimely death cut short further developments in his theory of the test.

Ethical considerations for precision psychiatry: A roadmap for research and clinical practice

Precision psychiatry is an emerging field with transformative opportunities for mental health. However, the use of clinical prediction models carries unprecedented ethical challenges, which must be addressed before accessing the potential benefits of precision psychiatry. This critical review covers multidisciplinary areas, including psychiatry, ethics, statistics and machine-learning, healthcare and academia, as well as input from people with lived experience of mental disorders, their family, and carers. We aimed to identify core ethical considerations for precision psychiatry and mitigate concerns by designing a roadmap for research and clinical practice. We identified priorities: learning from somatic medicine; identifying precision psychiatry use cases; enhancing transparency and generalizability; fostering implementation; promoting mental health literacy; communicating risk estimates; data protection and privacy; and fostering the equitable distribution of mental health care. We hope this blueprint will advance research and practice and enable people with mental health problems to benefit from precision psychiatry.

Why is formulation daunting? A response to Bagster et al.'s 'instructions' for developing skills in formulation

OBJECTIVE

To explore the theme identified by Bagster et al.¹ in their selective psychiatric literature review that formulation can appear daunting.

CONCLUSION

Formulation is understandably daunting, even though it occurs in all human encounters. The plural nature of mental symptoms is such that anxiety-provoking intuitive judgement is required at all points in both the process and explication of formulation, a type of instinctive guessing. There are no rules for this, because the laws of vertical integration of systems are not established. Guidelines are more appropriate than 'instructions'. Much of the wider mental health and clinical reasoning literature addresses intuitive judgement, but the current psychiatric literature tends to focus on pattern recognition as a deliberative cognitive act of Type 2 processes. Arguably this reductionism adds to the dauntingness. Anxiety detected about the intuitive judgement involved can be addressed in supervision, taking into account the psychological mindedness of the trainee.

Reflections on US Psychiatry: How the Baton Was Passed From European Psychiatry and the Contributions of US Psychiatry

ABSTRACT

The medical model in psychiatry and descriptive psychopathology were established in Germany by Krapelin's textbook and Jaspers' General Psychopathology. In the United Kingdom, Mayer-Gross' textbook synthesized both books, influencing US psychiatry. US psychiatrists from the World War II generation defeated the US academic psychoanalytic establishment by building three pillars: biological psychiatry (brought by Wortis), the psychopharmacology revolution, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Edition (DSM-III). The psychopharmacology revolution included immigrants (e.g., Gershon), Cole's marketing, and textbooks by Klein and Fink. The "neo-Kraepelinians" introduced the medical model in US psychiatry and defined 15 valid psychiatric disorders. Spitzer supervised DSM-III's development. Its 1980 publication started the world dominance of US psychiatry and the multiplication of diagnoses. Major contributions by US psychiatrists include a) McHugh's update of the Jaspersian approach, b) Fink's inclusion of catatonia as a syndrome in DSM-5 (following Abrams and Taylor's studies), and c) DSM-III's departure from the Jaspersian hierarchy of schizophrenia and affective symptoms.

Challenges and Future Prospects of Precision Medicine in Psychiatry

Precision medicine is increasingly recognized as a promising approach to improve disease treatment, taking into consideration the individual clinical and biological characteristics shared by specific subgroups of patients. In specific fields such as oncology and hematology, precision medicine has already started to be implemented in the clinical setting and molecular testing is routinely used to select treatments with higher efficacy and reduced adverse effects. The application of precision medicine in psychiatry is still in its early phases. However, there are already examples of predictive models based on clinical data or combinations of clinical, neuroimaging and biological data. While the power of single clinical predictors would remain inadequate if analyzed only with traditional statistical approaches, these predictors are now increasingly used to impute machine learning models that can have adequate accuracy even in the presence of relatively small sample size. These models have started to be applied to disentangle relevant clinical questions that could lead to a more effective management of psychiatric disorders, such as prediction of response to the mood stabilizer lithium, resistance to antidepressants in major depressive disorder or stratification of the risk and outcome prediction in schizophrenia. In this narrative review, we summarized the most important findings in precision medicine in psychiatry based on studies that constructed machine learning models using clinical, neuroimaging and/or biological data. Limitations and barriers to the implementation of precision psychiatry in the clinical setting, as well as possible solutions and future perspectives, will be presented.

Wernicke-Kleist-Leonhard phenotypes of endogenous psychoses: a review of their validity

While the ICD-DSM paradigm has been a major advance in clinical psychiatry, its usefulness for biological psychiatry is debated. By defining consensus-based disorders rather than empirically driven phenotypes, consensus classifications were not an implementation of the biomedical paradigm. In the field of endogenous psychoses, the Wernicke-Kleist-Leonhard (WKL) pathway has optimized the descriptions of 35 major phenotypes using common medical heuristics on lifelong diachronic observations. Regarding their construct validity, WKL phenotypes have good reliability and predictive and face validity. WKL phenotypes come with remarkable evidence for differential validity on age of onset, familiality, pregnancy complications, precipitating factors, and treatment response. Most impressive is the replicated separation of high- and low-familiality phenotypes. Created in the purest tradition of the biomedical paradigm, the WKL phenotypes deserve to be contrasted as credible alternatives with other approaches currently under discussion.
.

Mental State Examination and Its Procedures-Narrative Review of Brazilian Descriptive Psychopathology

Background: Mental State Examination (MSE) is compared with physical examination as a reliable method of objective data investigation. There is a growing concern with psychiatric clinics, nosology, and the reliability of diagnostic interview methods as a source of valid diagnostic strategy. Efforts to achieve an international diagnosis protocol have been unsuccessful or polemical. This paper focuses on psychopathology, MSE, and mental function development within Brazilian psychiatry over the last few decades. Methods: Searches, interviews, and narrative reviews were done to look for systematic ways in which to conduct MSE, mental functions, symptom clusters, orientations about data observation and records. Brazilian psychopathology textbooks were examined, if they provided access to consolidated knowledge on psychopathology examination. Results: Sixteen textbooks were selected from a 49 year span. Descriptive psychopathology with phenomenological orientation was the primary trend in the MSE. Concepts derived from different traditions, most lacking common terminology, suggested some divergence among authors. Recommendations for patient observation and how to collect objective data was clear, but MSE standardization efforts were missing. A detailed description of mental function abnormalities was the main MSE record strategy, without consensus about ways to summarize and record this data. In an examination summary, mental strata was divided into "mental functions," and MSE subsets were frequent. All authors considered the following mental functions: consciousness, perception, thought, memory, attention, orientation, and volition. Discussion: Psychiatric competence demands MSE proficiency. Official documents are not clear about performance and recording standards. MSE data was usually recorded through descriptive psychopathology. A shift from detailed descriptive findings, to an array of observed pathological elements, described through a mental function checklist was observed over time. Clinical practice and research guidelines should consider the development of reliable MSE practices; however, it has been neglected by modern psychiatry/neuroscience through the excessive emphasis on interview protocols. Better MSE practices, and the improvement of bedside skill in psychiatry are necessary and depend on the recovery of psychopathological debates and semiological reasoning, which will allow the return of phenomenology-oriented "observational" techniques.

Big Data and Discovery Sciences in Psychiatry

The modern society is a so-called era of big data. Whereas nearly everybody recognizes the "era of big data", no one can exactly define how big the data is a "big data". The reason for the ambiguity of the term big data mainly arises from the widespread of using that term. Along the widespread application of the digital technology in the everyday life, a large amount of data is generated every second in relation with every human behavior (i.e., measuring body movements through sensors, texts sent and received via social networking services). In addition, nonhuman data such as weather and Global Positioning System signals has been cumulated and analyzed in perspectives of big data (Kan et al. in Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(4), 2018 [1]). The big data has also influenced the medical science, which includes the field of psychiatry (Monteith et al. in Int J Bipolar Disord 3(1):21, 2015 [2]). In this chapter, we first introduce the definition of the term "big data". Then, we discuss researches which apply big data to solve problems in the clinical practice of psychiatry.

Integrating DSM/ICD, Research Domain Criteria, and Descriptive Psychopathology in Teaching and Practice of Psychiatry

Background: Some believe that Psychiatry relies solely on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some are not aware of the effort initiated by the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) to propel the field to a new era of Medicine. Others are not acquainted with studies of Descriptive Psychopathology that can dissect symptoms and signs of mental illness and convert them into reliable clinical data for diagnosis and treatment purpose. This document is to bring keenness of the advances in research, translational or clinical, made in Psychiatry, and to encourage students, psychiatric residents, as well as psychiatric practitioners to integrate DSM/ICD, RDoC, and Descriptive Psychopathology into teaching and practice. Methods: A search of the literature originated from 1985 to 2018 on two central databases: Google Scholar and Pubmed by free-texting: "comparison, strengths and weaknesses, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Research Domain Criteria, and Descriptive Psychopathology." Results: The DSM and ICD possess algorithms for psychiatric diagnosis, but they are limited to determine psychobiological causes of mental illnesses. Descriptive Psychopathology aims to dissect the mind to understand better "signs and symptoms," their psychological, neurological, or neuropsychological origins but has been criticized for being non-reliable to practically explain the meaning of signs and symptoms that it attempts to describe. The RDoC claims to be a data-driven system of biological and psychological research for an evidence-based approach to Psychiatry. It is said that RDoC utilizes translational research that has been very slow to move to human experimentation. Discussion and conclusion: Despite incommensurable translational research and human trials, the integration of translational research (neurosciences, experimental psychology, and genomics) as available human research data into teaching and practice is lacking. The author believes that the integration will enhance scientific and well-founded communication with our peers, advance psychopharmacologic treatments and improve our patient's mental well-being.

The Clinical Concept of Opioid Addiction Since 1877: Still Wanting After All These Years

In 1877, the psychiatrist Edward Levinstein authored the first monograph on opioid addiction. The prevalence of opioid addiction prior to his publication had risen in several countries including England, France and Germany. He was the first to call it an illness, but doubted that it was a mental illness because the impairment of volition appeared to be restricted to opioid use: it was not pervasive, since it did not extend to other aspects of the individuals' life. While there has been huge progress in understanding the underlying neurobiological mechanisms, there has been little progress in the clinical psychopathology of addiction and in understanding how it relates to these neurobiological mechanisms. A focus on cravings has limited the exploration of other important aspects such as anosognosia and addiction-related behaviors like smuggling opioids into treatment and supporting the continued provision of co-patients. These behaviors are usually considered secondary reactions, but in clinical practice they appear to be central to addiction, indicating that an improved understanding of the complexity of the disorder is needed. We propose to consider an approach that takes into account the embodied, situated, dynamic, and phenomenological aspects of mental processes. Addiction in this context can be conceptualized as a habit, understood as a distributed network of mental, behavioral, and social processes, which not only shapes the addict's perceptions and actions, but also has a tendency to self-maintain. Such an approach may help to develop and integrate psychopathological and neurobiological research and practice of addictions.