4.6 Article

A Network View on Psychiatric Disorders: Network Clusters of Symptoms as Elementary Syndromes of Psychopathology

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112734

关键词

-

资金

  1. Parnassia Academy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The vast number of psychopathological syndromes that can be observed in clinical practice can be described in terms of a limited number of elementary syndromes that are differentially expressed. Previous attempts to identify elementary syndromes have shown limitations that have slowed progress in the taxonomy of psychiatric disorders. Aim: To examine the ability of network community detection (NCD) to identify elementary syndromes of psychopathology and move beyond the limitations of current classification methods in psychiatry. Methods: 192 patients with unselected mental disorders were tested on the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS). Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the bootstrapped correlation matrix of symptom scores to extract the principal component structure (PCS). An undirected and weighted network graph was constructed from the same matrix. Network community structure (NCS) was optimized using a previously published technique. Results: In the optimal network structure, network clusters showed a 89% match with principal components of psychopathology. Some 6 network clusters were found, including DEPRESSION, MANIA, ANXIETY'', PSYCHOSIS, RETARDATION, and BEHAVIORAL DISORGANIZATION. Network metrics were used to quantify the continuities between the elementary syndromes. Conclusion: We present the first comprehensive network graph of psychopathology that is free from the biases of previous classifications: a 'Psychopathology Web'. Clusters within this network represent elementary syndromes that are connected via a limited number of bridge symptoms. Many problems of previous classifications can be overcome by using a network approach to psychopathology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据