Open Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 36, Number 2, Février 2020
Page(s) 163 - 168
Section Forum
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2020016
Published online 04 March 2020
  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, DSM-5, 5e ed. Arlington, VA : American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. Feighner JP, Robins E, Guze SB, et al. Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1972 ; 26 : 57–63. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Spitzer RL, Endicott J, Robins E. Research diagnostic criteria. New York state psychiatric Institute, biometrics research. New York : New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  4. Whooley O. Diagnostic ambivalence: psychiatric workarounds and the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Sociol Health Illn 2010 ; 32 : 452–469. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational Psychological Measurement 1960 ; 20 : 37–46. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hempel CG. Scientific explanation. Voice of America 1966. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zachar P, Kendler KS. The philosophy of nosology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2017 ; 13 : 49–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cuthbert BN, Insel TR. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med 2013 ; 11 : 126. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Haslam N. Kinds of kinds: a conceptual taxonomy of psychiatric categories. Philosophy Psychiatry Psychology 2002 ; 9 : 203–217. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuthbert BN, Insel TR. Toward new approaches to psychotic disorders: the NIMH research domain criteria project. Schizophr Bull 2010 ; 36 : 1061–1062. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kozak MJ, Cuthbert BN. The NIMH research domain criteria initiative: background, issues, and pragmatics. Psychophysiology 2016 ; 53 : 286–297. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Demazeux S, Pidoux V. Le projet RDoC. La classification psychiatrique de demain ? Med Sci (Paris) 2015; 31 : 792–6. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sullivan JA. Coordinated pluralism as a means to facilitate integrative taxonomies of cognition. Philosophical Explorations 2017 ; 20 : 129–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tabb K, Schaffner KF, Kendler KS, Parnas J. Causal pathways, random walks and tortuous paths: Moving from the descriptive to the etiological in psychiatry. Philosophical Issues Psychiatry IV - Psychiatric Nosology; 2017; 342–60. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kirmayer LJ, Crafa D. What kind of science for psychiatry?. Front Hum Neurosci 2014 ; 8 : 435. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Carpenter WT. RDoC and DSM-5: what’s the fuss?. Schizophr Bull 2013 ; 39 : 945–946. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Micoulaud-Franchi JA, Quiles C, Batail JM, et al. Vers une approche physiologique de la sémiologie en psychiatrie. Partie 1 : approches RDC, DSM, RDoC et HiTOP. Ann Med-Psycholo Rev Psychiatr 2019; 177 : 282–8. [Google Scholar]
  18. Etkin A, Cuthbert B. Beyond the DSM: development of a transdiagnostic psychiatric neuroscience course. Academic Psychiatry 2014 ; 38 : 145–150. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Faucher L, Goyer, S. RDoC: Thinking outside the DSM box without falling into a reductionist trap. In: The DSM-5 in perspective. Dordrecht : Springer, 2015 : 199–224. [Google Scholar]
  20. Barabási AL, Bonabeau E. Scale-free networks. Scientific American 2003 ; 288 : 60–69. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kitano H. Systems biology: a brief overview. Science 2002 ; 295 : 1662–1614. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dumas G, Cermolacce M, Batail JM, et al. Vers une approche physiologique de la sémiologie en psychiatrie. Partie 2 : perspectives offertes par la biologie systémique. Ann Med-Psycholo Rev Psychiatr 2019; 177 : 289–94. [Google Scholar]
  23. La Guchet X. médecine personnalisée, un essai philosophique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. Borsboom D, Cramer AO. Network analysis: an integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychologie 2013 ; 9 : 91–121. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Woodward J. Mechanistic explanation: its scope and limits. Proc Aristotelian Society (Suppl Volumes) 2013 ; 87 : 39–65. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goh KI, Cusick ME, Valle D, et al. The human disease network. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007 ; 104 : 8685–8690. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Blanken TF, Van Der Zweerde T, Van Straten A, et al. Introducing network intervention analysis to investigate sequential, symptom-specific treatment effects: a demonstration in co-occurring insomnia and depression. Psychotherapy Psychosomatics 2019 ; 88 : 52–54. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Borsboom D. A network theory of mental disorders. World Psychiatry 2017 ; 16 : 5–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Fried EI, Cramer AO. Moving forward: challenges and directions for psychopathological network theory and methodology. Perspectives Psychological Science 2017 ; 12 : 999–1020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kruis J, Maris G. Three representations of the Ising model. Sci Rep 2016 ; 6 : 34175. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Borsboom D, Mellenbergh GJ, Van Heerden J. The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Rev 2003 ; 110 : 203. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kendler KS. Toward a philosophical structure for psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 2005 ; 162 : 433–440. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Cramer AO, Waldorp LJ, Van Der Maas HL, Borsboom D. Comorbidity: a network perspective. Behav Brain Sci 2010 ; 33 : 137–150. [Google Scholar]
  34. Dennett DC Brainstorms: philosophical essays on mind and psychology 2017 ; Cambridge (MA), États-Unis MIT Press [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Borsboom D, Cramer AO, Kalis A. Brain disorders? Not really… Why network structures block reductionism in psychopathology research. Behav Brain Sci 2018; Jan 24 : 1–54. [Google Scholar]
  36. Darrason M. Médecine de précision et médecine des systèmes : la médecine personnalisée se trompe-t-elle de cible ?. Lato Sensu - Revue de la Société de Philosophie des Sciences 2017 ; 4 : 66–82. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Anderson GM, Montazeri F, de Bildt A. Network approach to autistic traits: group and subgroup analyses of ADOS item scores. J Autism Dev Disord 2015 ; 45 : 3115–3132. [Google Scholar]
  38. Isvoranu AM, Borsboom D, van Os J, Guloksuz S. A network approach to environmental impact in psychotic disorder: brief theoretical framework. Schizophr Bull 2016 ; 42 : 870–873. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Borsboom D, Fried EI, Epskamp S, et al. False alarm? A comprehensive reanalysis of evidence that psychopathology symptom networks have limited replicability, by Forbes, Wright, Markon, and Krueger. J Abnorm Psychol 2017 ; 126 : 989–999. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tonon G. From oncogene to network addiction: the new frontier of cancer genomics and therapeutics. Future Oncol 2008 ; 4 : 569–577. [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Effenterre A, Azoulay M, Champion F, Briffault X. Initial training in psychotherapy for psychiatrists in France: results of a national survey. Encephal 2013 ; 39 : 155–164. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.