↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
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
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0771-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leanne M. Williams, Andrea N. Goldstein-Piekarski, Nowreen Chowdhry, Katherine A. Grisanzio, Nancy A. Haug, Zoe Samara, Amit Etkin, Ruth O’Hara, Alan F. Schatzberg, Trisha Suppes, Jerome Yesavage

Abstract

Understanding how brain circuit dysfunctions relate to specific symptoms offers promise for developing a brain-based taxonomy for classifying psychopathology, identifying targets for mechanistic studies and ultimately for guiding treatment choice. The goal of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative of the National Institute of Mental Health is to accelerate the development of such neurobiological models of mental disorder independent of traditional diagnostic criteria. In our RDoC Anxiety and Depression ("RAD") project we focus trans-diagnostically on the spectrum of depression and anxiety psychopathology. Our aims are a) to use brain imaging to define cohesive dimensions defined by dysfunction of circuits involved in reactivity to and regulation of negatively valenced emotional stimulation and in cognitive control, b) to assess the relationships between these dimension and specific symptoms, behavioral performance and the real world capacity to function socially and at work and c) to assess the stability of brain-symptom-behavior-function relationships over time. Here we present the protocol for the "RAD" project, one of the first RDoC studies to use brain circuit functioning to define new dimensions of psychopathology. The RAD project follows baseline-follow up design. In line with RDoC principles we use a strategy for recruiting all clients who "walk through the door" of a large community mental health clinic as well as the surrounding community. The clinic attends to a broad spectrum of anxiety and mood-related symptoms. Participants are unmedicated and studied at baseline using a standardized battery of functional brain imaging, structural brain imaging and behavioral probes that assay constructs of threat reactivity, threat regulation and cognitive control. The battery also includes self-report measures of anxiety and mood symptoms, and social and occupational functioning. After baseline assessments, therapists in the clinic apply treatment planning as usual. Follow-up assessments are undertaken at 3 months, to establish the reliability of brain-based subgroups over time and to assess whether these subgroups predict real-world functional capacity over time. First enrollment was August 2013, and is ongoing. This project is designed to advance knowledge toward a neural circuit taxonomy for mental disorder. Data will be shared via the RDoC database for dissemination to the scientific community. The clinical translational neuroscience goals of the project are to develop brain-behavior profile reports for each individual participant and to refine these reports with therapist feedback. Reporting of results is expected from December 2016 onward. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02220309 . Registered: August 13, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 195 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 18%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 39 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 77 39%
Neuroscience 23 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 8%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 47 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,462,624
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,829
of 4,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,049
of 299,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#54
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 299,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.