↓ Skip to main content

Towards a genuinely medical model for psychiatric nosology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
79 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Towards a genuinely medical model for psychiatric nosology
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Randolph M Nesse, Dan J Stein

Abstract

Psychiatric nosology is widely criticized, but solutions are proving elusive. Planned revisions of diagnostic criteria will not resolve heterogeneity, comorbidity, fuzzy boundaries between normal and pathological, and lack of specific biomarkers. Concern about these difficulties reflects a narrow model that assumes most mental disorders should be defined by their etiologies. A more genuinely medical model uses understanding of normal function to categorize pathologies. For instance, understanding the function of a cough guides the search for problems causing it, and decisions about when it is expressed abnormally. Understanding the functions of emotions is a foundation missing from decisions about emotional disorders. The broader medical model used by the rest of medicine also recognizes syndromes defined by failures of functional systems or failures of feedback control. Such medical syndromes are similar to many mental diagnoses in their multiple causes, blurry boundaries, and nonspecific biomarkers. Dissatisfaction with psychiatric nosology may best be alleviated, not by new diagnostic criteria and categories, but by more realistic acknowledgment of the untidy landscape of mental and other medical disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Norway 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 188 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 16%
Other 21 10%
Student > Master 20 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Other 50 25%
Unknown 25 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 24%
Neuroscience 14 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 37 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 07 January 2024.
All research outputs
#936,847
of 25,506,250 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#660
of 4,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,476
of 249,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,506,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 249,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.