Skip to main content
Log in

Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)

Psychiatrische Forschung als angewandte kognitive Neurowissenschaft

Research domain criteria (RDoC)

Psychiatric research as applied cognitive neuroscience

  • Grundlagenforschung
  • Published:
Der Nervenarzt Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Kurz vor Einführung des DSM-5 im Jahre 2013 wurde die Research-Domain-Criteria(RDoC)-Initiative des National Institute of Mental Health bekannt gemacht, die in der Forschung zunehmend an Bedeutung gewinnt.

Ziel der Arbeit

Es soll die Grundidee der RDoC-Initiative erläutert, Einwände systematisch diskutiert, exemplarische Studien besprochen und die Relevanz der RDoC für Praktiker und Wissenschaftler dargelegt werden.

Material und Methoden

Es handelt sich um eine qualitative Einführungs- und Übersichtsarbeit mit kritischer Diskussion.

Ergebnisse und Diskussion

Die RDoC-Initiative ist nicht als praktisch verwendbares, alternatives Diagnosemanual zum DSM-5 oder zum ICD-10/11 geeignet und auch nicht so konzipiert worden. Vielmehr handelt es sich um eine neue Systematik für die psychiatrische Forschung. Sie basiert auf den neuesten Erkenntnissen der kognitiven Neurowissenschaft und ist dimensional und transdiagnostisch angelegt. Trotz einiger Kritikpunkte ist sie der zurzeit am besten ausgearbeitete Rahmen für eine multidisziplinäre Erforschung psychischer Störungen. Während das rein symptombasierte DSM- und ICD-System agnostisch bezüglich der Pathogenese psychischer Erkrankungen ist, hat die RDoC-Initiative das erklärte Ziel, biologisches Wissen über Risikofaktoren und Ursachen psychischer Krankheiten zu systematisieren. Somit hat es deutlich bessere Aussichten, neue, auf Krankheitsmechanismen basierende sowie individualisierte Therapiestrategien zu entwickeln.

Abstract

Background

Just before the official launch of the DSM-5 in 2013, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative of the National Institute of Mental Health was made public and is becoming increasingly more important in psychiatric research.

Objective

The aim of this paper is to clarify the conceptual approach of RDoC, to systematically discuss limitations, to present exemplary RDoC-based studies and to consider the relevance of the RDoC concepts for clinicians and scientists.

Material and methods

The is a qualitative introduction and review article with a critical discussion.

Results and discussion

The RDoC initiative was not conceived as an alternative diagnostic manual to DSM-5 or IDC-10/11 for use in clinical practice. It is a new systematic framework for psychiatric research based on the most recent results of cognitive neuroscience and aims to map mental disorders dimensionally and transdiagnostically. Despite some weaknesses, it is currently the most elaborated and scientifically grounded approach for multidisciplinary research on mental disorders. In contrast to the purely symptom-based DSM and ICD approaches, which are agnostic with respect to the pathogenesis of mental diseases, the explicit aim of the RDoC initiative is to systematize biological knowledge about risk factors and causes of mental disorders; therefore, it has a much greater potential to develop new and individualized therapeutic strategies based on disease mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistic manual of mental disorders, 5. Aufl. Amercian Psychiatric Association Publishing, Arlington VA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Bas-Hoogendam JM, Blackford JU, Brühl AB, Blair KS, van der Wee NJA, Westenberg PM (2016) Neurobiological candidate endophenotypes of social anxiety disorder. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 71:362–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clementz BA, Sweeney JA, Hamm JP, Ivleva EI, Ethridge LE, Pearlson GD, Keshavan MS, Tamminga CA (2016) Identification of distinct psychosis biotypes using brain-based biomarkers. Am J Psychiatry 173:373–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooper R (2014) Diagnosing the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Karnac Books Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cuthbert BN (2015) Research domain criteria: toward future psychiatric nosologies. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 17:89–97

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Erk S, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Schmierer P, Mohnke S, Grimm O, Garbusow M, Haddad L, Poehland L, Mühleisen TW, Witt SH, Tost H, Kirsch P, Romanczuk-Seiferth N, Schott BH, Cichon S, Nöthen MM, Rietschel M, Heinz A, Walter H (2014) Hippocampal and frontolimbic function as intermediate phenotype for psychosis: evidence from healthy relatives and a common risk variant in CACNA1C. Biol Psychiatry 76:466–475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Erk S, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Schnell K et al (2010) Brain function in carriers of a genome-wide supported bipolar disorder variant. Arch Gen Psychiatry 67:803–811

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frances A (2013) Normal: Gegen die Inflation psychiatrischer Diagnosen. DuMont, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grimm O, Heinz A, Walter H et al (2014) Striatal response to reward anticipation: evidence for a systems-level intermediate phenotype for schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry 71:531–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heinz A, Voss M, Lawrie SM, Mishara A, Bauer M, Gallinat J, Juckel G, Lang U, Rapp M, Falkai P, Strik W, Krystal J, Abi-Dargham A, Galderisi S (2016) Shall we really say goodbye to first rank symptoms? Eur Psychiatry 37:8–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Insel T (2013) Transforming diagnosis. www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml. Zugegriffen: 08. September 2016

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kendler KS, Zachar P, Craver C (2010) What kinds of things are psychiatric disorders? Psychol Med 41:1143–1150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirmayer LJ, Crafa D (2014) What kind of science for psychiatry? Front Hum Neurosci 8:435

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kozak MJ, Cuthbert BN (2016) The NIMH research domain criteria initiative: background, issues, and pragmatics. Psychophysiology 53:286–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lang PJ, McTeague LM, Bradley MM (2016) RDoC, DSM, and the reflex physiology of fear: a biodimensional analysis of the anxiety disorders spectrum. Psychophysiology 53:336–347

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers GB, Keating DJ, Young RL, Wong ML, Licinio J, Wesselingh S (2016) From gut dysbiosis to altered brain function and mental illness: mechanisms and pathways. Mol Psychiatry 21:738–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Spitzer RL, Endicott J, Robins E (1978) Research diagnostic criteria: rationale and reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry 35:773–782

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stephan A, Walter S (2013) Handbuch Kognitionswissenschaft. Metzler, Stuttgart

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Walter H (2013) The third wave of biological psychiatry. Front Psychol 4:582

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Walter H, Mohnke S (2015) Mentalizing and psychopathology in schizophrenia, depression, and social anxiety. In: Toga AW (Hrsg) Brain mapping: An encyclopedic reference. Academic Press, Waltham, S 183–189

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Walter H, Müller J (2015) Der Beitrag der Neurowissenschaften zum psychiatrischen Krankheitsbegriff. Nervenarzt 86:22–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weinberger DR, Glick ID, Klein DF (2015) Whither Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)? The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. JAMA Psychiatry 72:1161–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Williams LM (2016) Precision psychiatry: a neural circuit taxonomy for depression and anxiety. Lancet Psychiatry 3:472–480

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Williams LM, Goldstein-Piekarski AN, Chowdhry N, Grisanzio KA, Haug NA, Samara Z, Etkin A, O’Hara R, Schatzberg AF, Suppes T, Yesavage J (2016) Developing a clinical translational neuroscience taxonomy for anxiety and mood disorder: protocol for the baseline-follow up Research domain criteria Anxiety and Depression (“RAD”) project. BMC Psychiatry 16:68

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Walter.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

H. Walter hat 2014 ein Vortragshonorar von der Fa. Servier erhalten.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walter, H. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Nervenarzt 88, 538–548 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-017-0284-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-017-0284-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation