We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editorial |

The Value of Psychiatric Diagnoses

Stephan Heckers, MD1,2
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
2Editor, JAMA Psychiatry
JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(12):1165-1166. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2250.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Are we using the best diagnoses to make progress in psychiatric research? In the current issue of JAMA Psychiatry, we ask whether dimensional diagnoses should replace categorical diagnoses. Yee and coauthors1 argue in favor of such a change, and Weinberger and coauthors2 argue against it. Our statistical editor, Helena Chmura Kraemer, PhD, reflects on this debate.3 These invited articles were stimulated by the decision of the National Institute of Mental Health to focus psychiatric research on the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), a new nosology for psychiatric disorders.

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Diagnostic categories/systems for clinical and research purposes ?
Posted on November 21, 2015
Dr Ian Patrick Burges Watson
Psychiatry; Hon Fellow University of Tasmania
Conflict of Interest: None Declared

Heckers [1] questions whether we are “using the best diagnoses to make progress in psychiatric research” and the suggestion that we may need dimensional rather than categorical diagnoses. Three articles in the same issue also address the question, with reference to a proposed Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) classification.  Diagnosis of mental illness has been a major problem for some two hundred years [2] and psychology was heavily involved before psychiatry became a medical specialty. It has still had a lot to say particularly in my early career time –when models of madness [3] were argued about as well as diagnosis. It is only in the last fifty years that we have started to know enough about the neurobiology of mental disorders to be able to hope for a truly medical diagnostic classification. The current practice of using a wide range of pharmaceuticals across divergent diagnostic categories [4] points to the extreme complexity of the molecular relationships in mental functioning, well and sick.  One of the criticisms of evidence based medicine is the relative departure from preclinical basic sciences [5] in which psychiatry has ever been way behind the rest of medicine.

Thus the time is ripe to have two classifications, as the ICD has tried. The DSM in its turn is fine for clinical use, changing from time to time as our knowledge base increases, or our treatment practices change, sufficiently to warrant a revision. It almost certainly will not be satisfactory until it reflects an understanding of the basic, whole of body, neurobiology. If RDoC is preferred by researchers and especially biologists, so be it. As Hecker says “The proponents of RDoC are correct that we need a much deeper exploration of neuroscience and genetics to advance a mechanistic understanding of mental illness”. Clinicians should welcome and encourage such research into the molecular physiology of all psychiatric disorders, without the misleading distinction between organic and psychological disorders and bearing in mind that important molecular relationships extend beyond the head. Like infection the response to threat and challenge (including of course infection/invasion) is among the oldest life functions and the molecular response is therefore likely to show up in all later more sophisticated responses and functions. With such research we may well come full circle and somatic symptoms might again feature in the diagnostic process [2]. The pursuit of a truly medical diagnostic classification does not mean that psychology is not recognized for the valuable part it has to play in understanding and in the treatment of mental disorders.


[1] Heckers S. The Value of Psychiatric Diagnoses. Editorial. [published online Nov. 11, 2015]. JAMA Psychiatry. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2250.
[2] Berrios GE. The History of Mental Symptoms: descriptive psychopathology since the nineteenth century. 1996. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
[3] Siegler M, Osmond H. Models of Madness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1968; 112;1193-203.
[4] Homberg JR, Kyzar EJ, Stewart AM et al. Improving treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders: Recommendations based on preclinical studies. [published first online Nov 11, 2015] Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

[5] Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N et al. (Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group) 

Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? British Medical Journal. 2014; 13;348:g3725. 
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3725.

Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
A Brief Word About Quality

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Reliability of the MAST, CAGE, and AUDIT Questionnaires