4.6 Review

Toward reformulating the diagnosis of schizophrenia

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 157, 期 7, 页码 1041-1050

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.7.1041

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-46318, MH-43518, MH-41879] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The authors assess implications of DSM criteria for schizophrenia by reviewing the criteria's 1) emphasis on psychotic features, 2) dissociation of symptoms from their etiology, 3) exclusive reliance on clinical features but exclusion of biological indicators, and 4) classification of schizophrenia as a discrete category. The authors then discuss alternative conceptions of schizophrenia that take into account recent data concerning its genetic and neurodevelopmental origins and its pathophysiological substrates. Method: The historical development of diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia is reviewed in the context of recent published data on the biology and development of schizophrenia. Results: Growing evidence suggests that symptoms of psychosis may be a common end-state in a variety of disorders, including schizophrenia, rather than a reflection of the specific etiology of schizophrenia. Features occurring before the advent of psychosis that are clinical, biological, and/ or neuropsychological in nature may constitute evidence of a genetic predisposition toward schizophrenia (schizotaxia) and may provide more specific information about the genetic, pathophysiological, and developmental origins of schizophrenia. Conclusions: The success of efforts to treat and prevent schizophrenia will depend to an important extent on an accurate understanding of its causes. This goal can be furthered by conducting field trials to develop research criteria to assess the value of a developmentally sensitive, biologically informed approach to classification that would consider schizotaxia with psychosis (schizophrenia) and schizotaxia alone as distinct diagnostic conditions.

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