↓ Skip to main content

Realising stratified psychiatry using multidimensional signatures and trajectories

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Realising stratified psychiatry using multidimensional signatures and trajectories
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-1116-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan W. Joyce, Angie A. Kehagia, Derek K. Tracy, Jessica Proctor, Sukhwinder S. Shergill

Abstract

Stratified or personalised medicine targets treatments for groups of individuals with a disorder based on individual heterogeneity and shared factors that influence the likelihood of response. Psychiatry has traditionally defined diagnoses by constellations of co-occurring signs and symptoms that are assigned a categorical label (e.g. schizophrenia). Trial methodology in psychiatry has evaluated interventions targeted at these categorical entities, with diagnoses being equated to disorders. Recent insights into both the nosology and neurobiology of psychiatric disorder reveal that traditional categorical diagnoses cannot be equated with disorders. We argue that current quantitative methodology (1) inherits these categorical assumptions, (2) allows only for the discovery of average treatment response, (3) relies on composite outcome measures and (4) sacrifices valuable predictive information for stratified and personalised treatment in psychiatry. To achieve a truly 'stratified psychiatry' we propose and then operationalise two necessary steps: first, a formal multi-dimensional representation of disorder definition and clinical state, and second, the similar redefinition of outcomes as multidimensional constructs that can expose within- and between-patient differences in response. We use the categorical diagnosis of schizophrenia-conceptualised as a label for heterogeneous disorders-as a means of introducing operational definitions of stratified psychiatry using principles from multivariate analysis. We demonstrate this framework by application to the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness dataset, showing heterogeneity in both patient clinical states and their trajectories after treatment that are lost in the traditional categorical approach with composite outcomes. We then systematically review a decade of registered clinical trials for cognitive deficits in schizophrenia highlighting existing assumptions of categorical diagnoses and aggregate outcomes while identifying a small number of trials that could be reanalysed using our proposal. We describe quantitative methods for the development of a multi-dimensional model of clinical state, disorders and trajectories which practically realises stratified psychiatry. We highlight the potential for recovering existing trial data, the implications for stratified psychiatry in trial design and clinical treatment and finally, describe different kinds of probabilistic reasoning tools necessary to implement stratification.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 21%
Neuroscience 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Computer Science 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,303,306
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#576
of 4,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,766
of 430,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#9
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.