The Power and Pitfalls of Omics: George Davey Smith’s storming talk at ME/CFS conference
Read about the talk that stole the show at a recent ME/CFS conference in Simon McGrath's two-part blog.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Biomarkers outperform symptoms in parsing psychosis subgroups 12/8/15 via NIH

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by *GG*, Dec 8, 2015.

  1. *GG*

    *GG* Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,144
    Likes:
    4,738
    Concord, NH
    Cheshire, Woolie, Scarecrow and 5 others like this.
  2. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,491
    Likes:
    35,107
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    In time it will all be biomarker driven. The days of symptom driven psychiatric diagnoses are limited ... but we are still a long long way for doing that for most psych disorders, if not nearly all of them. Thanks for this article.
     
    merylg and L'engle like this.
  3. Marco

    Marco Grrrrrrr!

    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes:
    3,175
    Near Cognac, France
    Fascinating - thanks.

    We NEED research like this but do we really need to fret about 'strict' criteria of ME/CFS?

    "The results lend support to the institute’s Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDoC) initiative, which frees scientists from designing research based on traditional diagnostic categories, encouraging them to explore groupings based on genomics, behavioral dimensions, physiological traits, or brain imaging findings. More precise diagnosis is expected to lead to improved treatments."
     
  4. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes:
    14,537
    Monmouth, UK
    Fascinating. Couldn't find the underlying study, though
     
    ahmo and aimossy like this.
  5. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,189
    So this confirms what many have been thinking right? That criteria based on description of symptoms are really inadequate in some diseases.
     
    Cheshire and Marco like this.
  6. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,491
    Likes:
    35,107
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    @A.B, this is already well known, but the problem has always been what to do about it.
     
    Woolie, A.B. and merylg like this.
  7. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes:
    14,556
    @Simon, here is the original article.

    Identification of Distinct Psychosis Biotypes Using Brain-Based Biomarkers
    Brett A. Clementz, Ph.D., John A. Sweeney, Ph.D., Jordan P. Hamm, Ph.D., Elena I. Ivleva, M.D., Ph.D., Lauren E. Ethridge, Ph.D., Godfrey D. Pearlson, M.D., Matcheri S. Keshavan, M.D., Carol A. Tamminga, M.D.

     
    Simon and SOC like this.
  8. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    Biomarkers more reliable than subjectively assessed symptoms.

    Surprise! :woot:

    Not. :meh:
     
    jimells likes this.
  9. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes:
    14,556
    I have mixed feelings about this paper. I really like the idea behind the approach - of cutting across the traditional diagnostic boundaries and looking for other, better ways of differentiating people with psychiatric disorders. And its an impressive sample, of more than 700 patients - wow!

    But what I find odd is that they didn't justify why they chose the measures they did. And the measures were actually behavioural, not biological ones - even though they keep using the word "biological" everywhere. Its like they just gathered together a lot of tasks that people with psychosis have previously been found to perform poorly on.

    It turns out some people are impaired on one group of tasks/measures and not the other, and others show the opposite pattern (there's a third group, but they're just less impaired on everything, so they don't seem to count as a qualitatively different group)

    The MRI scans don't offer much at all. The two main groups have more widespread grey matter loss than the other (the one that is less impaired on everything), but the patterns for these two main groups do not appear to be qualitatively different.

    I didn't come away from the paper convinced that this method of discriminating amongst patients is better than the traditional method. What you'd need in order to be convincing here is some sort of theoretical framework which was consistent with the patterns, or some evidence that they're more useful in some practical way - like predicting responsiveness to treatment or prognosis or something.

    However, it's definitely interesting data, and a step in the right direction.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2015
    jimells, barbc56, Simon and 3 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page