Psychiatry

Abstract

Psychiatry is the branch of medicine devoted to the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disorders, and one of the behavioral sciences in which cognitive psychology has its clinical stake. This article treats it as a medical discipline built on a diagnostic enterprise, tracing the descriptive nosology from Kraepelin to the modern manuals, the long argument between categorical and dimensional models of psychopathology, and the biopsychosocial and biological frameworks that compete to explain why disorders arise. It examines how a diagnostic threshold across a continuous distribution of symptoms manufactures cases and non-cases, how sources of liability combine to push a person past a disorder threshold, and how a treatment's effect is measured against placebo as the number needed to treat. Three interactive demonstrations let the reader move a diagnostic cut-point, combine sources of risk, and weigh a therapy against control.

Keywords: psychiatry, mental disorders, psychiatric diagnosis, biopsychosocial model, categorical and dimensional classification

Psychiatry is the medical specialty concerned with disorders of thought, mood, perception, and behavior: with recognizing them, explaining them, treating them, and where possible preventing them. It sits at an unusual junction, drawing at once on the biology of the nervous system, the psychology of the individual mind, and the social world in which a life is lived, and it must translate all three into decisions about a particular patient in a clinic. Because its objects are the very faculties that cognitive psychology studies—attention, memory, reasoning, emotion—psychiatry is the field where the science of the mind meets the practical demand to relieve suffering, and its central and still-unsettled problem is definitional: what counts as a mental disorder, and how the fuzzy, graded, overlapping phenomena of psychological distress are to be carved into the discrete diagnoses that medicine requires (Kendler, 2016).

What Psychiatry Is

Psychiatry is distinguished from the rest of medicine less by the organ it treats than by the kind of evidence it must work from. A cardiologist can point to a coronary angiogram; the psychiatrist, for the great majority of conditions, has no comparable biological test and must instead infer a disorder from a patient's reported experience, observed behavior, and history, assembled into a clinical picture and matched against agreed descriptions. This gives the field its characteristic methods—the diagnostic interview, the mental status examination, the longitudinal history—and its characteristic vulnerability, that the boundary between disorder and distress, between pathology and painful normality, is drawn by convention as much as by nature. The discipline is also unusually plural in its explanatory commitments. A single case of depression can be described as a disturbance of monoamine neurotransmission, as a pattern of maladaptive cognition, as the residue of early loss, and as a response to unemployment and isolation, and none of these descriptions is simply false. Psychiatry's task is to hold these levels together rather than reduce them to one, and much of its intellectual history is a swing between periods when one level—the psychodynamic, the biological, the social—claims to be the whole story (Kendler, 2005). The mental disorders it treats are, by any measure, among the largest contributors to human ill health: depressive and anxiety disorders alone account for a vast share of years lived with disability worldwide, and mental disorders as a group are consistently among the leading causes of the global disease burden (GBD 2019 Mental Disorders Collaborators, 2022).

Types of Psychiatry

Psychiatry is a formal descriptor in the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings, which files it in two places at once: beneath the Behavioral Sciences at tree position F04.096.544, and beneath Medicine at H02.403.690. Beneath the descriptor hangs the set of narrower headings listed in Table 1. Two cautions apply. The list is an indexing classification built to organize the biomedical literature, not a theory that carves the discipline at its joints, and its members are neither mutually exclusive nor jointly exhaustive: neuropsychiatry and biological psychiatry overlap heavily, child and adolescent psychiatry shade into each other, and the subspecialties that actually structure clinical training cut across these headings rather than matching them one to one. Only subtypes that are themselves live articles on this site are linked, and at present none of these descriptors has its own page.

The Diagnostic Enterprise

Modern psychiatry rests on a diagnostic enterprise whose foundations were laid at the end of the nineteenth century, when Emil Kraepelin argued that mental disorders could be distinguished not by their momentary symptoms but by their course and outcome, and drew from clinical observation the great divide between the deteriorating psychosis he called dementia praecox, later schizophrenia, and the episodic, remitting manic-depressive illness. Kraepelin's descriptive, prognosis-based method receded during the mid-century dominance of psychoanalysis, then returned decisively in 1980, when the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders replaced vague theory-laden definitions with explicit operational criteria: checklists of specified symptoms, in specified numbers, present for specified durations. The reform, led by Robert Spitzer, was driven by a crisis of reliability—clinicians using the older manuals frequently disagreed on diagnosis—and it succeeded in making diagnosis far more consistent between raters. That consistency is the precondition for research: only if two studies mean the same thing by major depression can their findings be compared, and the epidemiology that followed could put numbers on the population burden, showing that a large fraction of people meet criteria for a disorder at some point in life, most conditions begin early, and comorbidity between diagnoses is the rule rather than the exception (Kessler et al., 2005). But the operational revolution bought reliability at a price that the field is still paying, because agreement between clinicians does not guarantee that the category they agree on corresponds to a real and distinct thing in nature.

Categorical and Dimensional Models

The deepest structural question in psychiatric classification is whether disorders are genuinely discrete kinds or arbitrary regions cut from continuous distributions. The manuals are overwhelmingly categorical: a person either meets the criteria for a disorder or does not, and the diagnostic threshold—five of nine symptoms for major depression, for instance—converts a graded reality into a binary verdict. Yet the evidence increasingly favors continuity. Symptoms of most common disorders are distributed smoothly in the population without a natural break at the diagnostic cut-point; people just below threshold differ from those just above it in degree rather than in kind; and the same underlying dimensions of internalizing and externalizing pathology recur across many nominally separate diagnoses, which is why comorbidity is so pervasive. These observations motivated the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, an empirically derived, dimensional alternative that organizes symptoms into a hierarchy of correlated spectra rather than a list of categories, aiming to describe where a person falls on continuous liabilities instead of which discrete boxes they occupy (Kotov et al., 2017). The categorical approach retains real advantages—a threshold is needed to decide whether to treat, and clinical communication runs on named conditions—but its central hazard is reification: the temptation to mistake a useful diagnostic construct, defined by a committee for a manual, for a natural disease entity with a single cause waiting to be found, when the category may be a heterogeneous convenience (Hyman, 2010). The demonstration below makes the manufacture of categories explicit, letting the reader slide a diagnostic threshold across a continuous distribution of symptom severity and watch cases and non-cases appear on either side of a line that nature did not draw.

The Biopsychosocial Model

If diagnosis asks what a disorder is, etiology asks why it arises, and here the dominant modern answer refuses to privilege any single level. In 1977 the internist George Engel challenged what he called the biomedical model, the assumption that disease is fully explained by deranged biochemistry and physiology, and proposed instead a biopsychosocial model in which illness is understood as a hierarchy of interacting systems running from molecule and cell up through the person to family, community, and society, so that a full account of any case must reach across several of these levels at once (Engel, 1977). For psychiatry the model is more than a slogan, because the empirical picture of most disorders is genuinely multifactorial: no single gene and no single experience is either necessary or sufficient, and instead many small genetic contributions and many environmental exposures each raise or lower a person's liability, with disorder appearing when the summed liability crosses a threshold. This liability-threshold logic, inherited from quantitative genetics, is the formal backbone of the diathesis-stress accounts that pervade psychiatry, and it explains why the same diagnosis can follow from very different mixtures of cause in different people, and why risk factors are almost always probabilistic rather than determining (Kendler, 2005). Figure 1 shows Engel's nested hierarchy of systems, and the demonstration that follows makes the threshold logic quantitative, letting the reader load a person's liability from biological, psychological, and social sources and see whether the combined burden crosses the line into disorder.

Biological Psychiatry and RDoC

Alongside the integrative biopsychosocial current runs a frankly biological one, which holds that mental disorders are disorders of the brain and that progress will come from neuroscience and genetics. This program has ancient roots and modern force, and by the early twenty-first century it had produced a pointed critique of the diagnostic manuals from within the research establishment. Arguing that the manual categories are poor guides to underlying biology—too heterogeneous, too comorbid, too far from the mechanisms that genes and circuits actually implement—the United States National Institute of Mental Health under Thomas Insel launched the Research Domain Criteria framework, which proposed to set the diagnostic categories aside for research purposes and instead study basic dimensions of functioning such as fear, reward, and cognitive control across their full range from normal to pathological, indexed at multiple levels from genes to circuits to behavior (Insel et al., 2010). The ambition is explicit and contested: to reground psychiatric classification in biology rather than in the phenomenology the manuals describe, on the wager that the natural joints of psychopathology lie at the level of neural systems (Insel & Cuthbert, 2015). Critics counter that decades of biological research have yet to yield a single diagnostic test or a clean mapping from circuit to disorder, that the mental cannot be dissolved without remainder into the neural, and that a purely brain-based psychiatry risks discarding the psychological and social levels that the biopsychosocial model was formulated to protect (Kendler, 2005). The debate remains unresolved, and it defines much of the field's current self-understanding.

Treatment and Evidence

Whatever the disputes about classification and cause, psychiatry must act, and it possesses a substantial and growing armamentarium of treatments whose effects have been quantified in large syntheses. For the major disorders the evidence base is now built on network meta-analyses that pool dozens of randomized trials to compare many treatments at once. Such analyses confirm that antidepressants are on average more effective than placebo for adults with major depression, while also showing that the drugs differ from one another in efficacy and acceptability and that the average advantage over placebo, though real, is modest (Cipriani et al., 2018); that antipsychotic drugs likewise separate from placebo and from each other in the treatment of schizophrenia, with meaningful differences in both benefit and side-effect burden (Leucht et al., 2013); and that structured psychotherapies produce clinically worthwhile benefits for depression across the lifespan, comparable in many comparisons to medication (Cuijpers et al., 2020). The recurring lesson is one of genuine but bounded effectiveness: these treatments help, and for many patients they are transformative, but the average effect sizes are moderate, no single agent is best for everyone, and the honest currency for describing a treatment's benefit is not a promise of cure but a rate—how many patients must be treated for one additional person to improve who would not have improved on the control. The demonstration below builds that measure from response rates, letting the reader set the proportion who respond on a treatment and on its control and read off the absolute benefit and the resulting number needed to treat.

Worked Example

The most useful single number for weighing a psychiatric treatment is the number needed to treat, the count of patients who must receive the treatment rather than the control for one extra good outcome, and it follows directly from two response rates. Consider a network meta-analysis of antidepressants of the kind reported by Cipriani and colleagues, and suppose that in the pooled trials 50 of every 100 patients given an active drug meet the criterion for response—a clinically meaningful reduction in symptoms—while 35 of every 100 given placebo also respond, since placebo response in depression is substantial. The treatment's benefit over placebo is not the 50 percent response rate on its own, because more than a third would have responded anyway; it is the difference between the two rates. That difference is the absolute risk reduction, here 0.50 minus 0.35, which equals 0.15, or fifteen additional responders for every hundred patients treated. The number needed to treat is simply the reciprocal of this absolute difference: one divided by 0.15, which is about 6.7, so it rounds to 7. In words, roughly seven patients must be prescribed the antidepressant for one additional person to respond who would not have responded on placebo, and the other six either would have improved anyway or do not improve on the drug. This modest figure is not a mark of failure—a single-digit number needed to treat is respectable by the standards of medicine, and comparable to many accepted treatments in other specialties—but it is a corrective to both therapeutic overstatement and blanket dismissal, and it is exactly the quantity the third demonstration computes as the two response rates are varied (Cipriani et al., 2018).

Discussion

Psychiatry occupies a genuinely difficult position among the sciences of the mind, because it cannot wait for the definitional and etiological questions to be settled before it acts. It must diagnose with manuals whose categories it knows to be imperfect, explain with models that reach across levels no single method can capture, and treat with interventions whose average benefits are modest even when they are real. The field's history is in part a history of overcorrection—periods when the psychological level was taken for the whole, then periods when the biological level made the same claim—and its maturity is visible in the current reluctance to let any single level dominate, a reluctance the biopsychosocial model articulates and the multifactorial evidence enforces. The categorical-versus-dimensional debate is not a technicality but a question about what psychiatry's objects really are, and the reification hazard is a standing warning that a name in a manual is a hypothesis, not a discovery. For cognitive psychology the stakes are direct: the disorders psychiatry treats are, in large part, disturbances of the perceptual, mnemonic, attentional, and reasoning processes that the parent discipline studies in health, and the traffic runs both ways, with cognitive models informing therapy and clinical breakdown illuminating normal function. The open questions are correspondingly deep. Can a classification be built that respects the continuity of symptoms while still supporting the categorical decisions treatment requires? Will biological research eventually deliver the tests and mechanisms it has long promised, and if it does, will they map onto the manual's categories or dissolve them? And how should a discipline that helps real patients with imperfect tools weigh the certainty of present suffering against the incompleteness of its science? What psychiatry contributes is not a finished theory of the disordered mind but a sustained, self-critical effort to relieve it, conducted under exactly the uncertainty its subject imposes (Kendler, 2016).

Current Directions

The most active front is the attempt to replace or supplement the categorical manuals with empirically grounded dimensional systems, and to test whether they predict course and treatment response better than the diagnoses they would displace. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology has moved from proposal to a large research program, generating measures and evidence that its correlated spectra capture the structure of symptoms more faithfully than the manual's discrete list, though its clinical adoption remains partial and contested (Kotov et al., 2017). Running in parallel is the biological reframing pressed by the Research Domain Criteria initiative, which continues to argue that durable progress requires studying dimensions of brain function across the normal-to-pathological range rather than the manual's phenomenological categories, even as it acknowledges how far that vision remains from clinical reality (Insel & Cuthbert, 2015). A third direction is quantitative and comparative: large network meta-analyses now let the field rank whole classes of treatment for efficacy and tolerability at once, turning scattered trials into usable clinical guidance and exposing where the evidence is thin (Cipriani et al., 2018). Across these fronts a shared theme is the demand that classification and treatment be judged by prediction and outcome rather than by tradition, and a shared humility about how much of the etiological picture remains unknown. The lines of argument connect naturally to cognitive accounts of mental processes and to the decision making under uncertainty that clinical judgment itself exemplifies.

Common Misconceptions

A psychiatric diagnosis identifies a distinct disease with a single known cause.

For most conditions it does not. Diagnostic categories are reliable descriptions agreed for a manual, not proven natural disease entities, and treating them as though each had one cause waiting to be found is the reification error—many categories are heterogeneous and share underlying dimensions with their neighbors (Hyman, 2010).

Mental disorders are either purely biological or purely psychological.

The evidence favors neither extreme. Most disorders are multifactorial, arising when many partial causes—genetic, developmental, and environmental—combine past a threshold, which is precisely why the biopsychosocial model was proposed and why single-level accounts keep failing to be complete (Engel, 1977).

If a treatment works, it should cure most of the patients who take it.

Effective psychiatric treatments typically produce modest average benefits over placebo, better expressed as a number needed to treat than as a cure rate. That antidepressants or antipsychotics separate from placebo in meta-analysis is compatible with many treated patients showing little change, because a substantial fraction improve on control alone (Cipriani et al., 2018).

Glossary

Absolute risk reduction.

The difference between the good-outcome rate on a treatment and the rate on its control; the reciprocal of this difference is the number needed to treat.

Biopsychosocial model.

Engel's framework in which illness is understood across a hierarchy of interacting biological, psychological, and social systems rather than at one level alone.

Categorical classification.

A scheme in which a person either has a disorder or does not, decided by whether specified criteria are met; the approach of the standard diagnostic manuals.

Comorbidity.

The co-occurrence of two or more diagnoses in the same person, so common in psychiatry that it points to shared underlying dimensions.

Diagnostic threshold.

The cut-point, such as a required number of symptoms, that converts a continuous distribution of severity into the binary verdict of case or non-case.

Diathesis-stress.

The account in which disorder appears when a predisposing vulnerability (diathesis) is combined with sufficient environmental stress to cross a liability threshold.

Dimensional classification.

A scheme that locates a person along one or more continuous dimensions of severity rather than assigning them to discrete categories.

HiTOP.

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, an empirically derived dimensional model that organizes symptoms into a hierarchy of correlated spectra.

Liability-threshold model.

A model from quantitative genetics in which many small causes sum to a continuous liability, and disorder appears once that liability exceeds a threshold.

Mental disorder.

A clinically significant disturbance of cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior, associated with distress or impairment, that psychiatry seeks to diagnose and treat.

Nosology.

The branch of medicine concerned with the classification of diseases; in psychiatry, the systematic description and grouping of mental disorders.

Number needed to treat.

The number of patients who must receive a treatment rather than the control for one additional good outcome; the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction.

Operational criteria.

Explicit, specified rules—which symptoms, how many, for how long—that define a diagnosis, introduced to make diagnosis reliable between clinicians.

Reification.

The error of treating an abstract diagnostic construct as though it were a concrete natural entity with a single essence and cause.

Reliability.

The degree to which independent clinicians reach the same diagnosis for the same patient; a precondition for research but not a guarantee of validity.

Research Domain Criteria.

The RDoC framework, which studies basic dimensions of brain and behavioral function across the normal-to-pathological range instead of the manual's categories.

Validity.

The degree to which a diagnostic category corresponds to a real and distinct condition in nature, as opposed to merely being agreed upon.

Key Researchers

Allen Frances. Psychiatrist and professor emeritus at Duke University who chaired the task force for the fourth edition of the diagnostic manual; he became a prominent critic of diagnostic inflation and the medicalization of ordinary distress. Faculty Page - Wikipedia

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Viennese neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis at the University of Vienna; his theory of unconscious conflict dominated mid-century psychiatry and remains one of its defining, and most contested, intellectual legacies. Wikipedia

Steven E. Hyman. Neuroscientist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and former director of the National Institute of Mental Health; his analysis of diagnostic reification framed a central problem of psychiatric classification. ORCID - Faculty Page - Google Scholar - Wikipedia

Thomas R. Insel. Neuroscientist and psychiatrist, former director of the National Institute of Mental Health and co-founder of Vanna Health; he launched the Research Domain Criteria framework to reground psychiatric research in brain function. ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia

Kenneth S. Kendler. Psychiatrist and behavioral geneticist at Virginia Commonwealth University; his work on the philosophical structure and multifactorial etiology of psychiatric disorders shaped how the field thinks about causation. ORCID - Faculty Page - Google Scholar - Wikipedia

Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926). German psychiatrist at the University of Munich; his descriptive, course-based nosology, especially the distinction between dementia praecox and manic-depressive illness, is the foundation of modern psychiatric classification. Wikipedia

Philippe Pinel (1745-1826). French physician at the Bicêtre and Salpêtrière hospitals in Paris; a founding figure of clinical psychiatry, remembered for the moral treatment of the insane and the systematic observation of mental illness. Wikipedia

Robert L. Spitzer (1932-2015). Psychiatrist at Columbia University who led the reform of the third edition of the diagnostic manual; his introduction of explicit operational criteria transformed the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

What is psychiatry?
Psychiatry is the branch of medicine concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disorders. It draws on biological, psychological, and social levels of explanation and works largely from a patient's reported experience, observed behavior, and history rather than from a definitive biological test (Kendler, 2005).

How is psychiatry different from psychology?
Psychiatry is a medical specialty whose practitioners are physicians and can prescribe medication and treat the biological aspects of disorder, while psychology is a broader science of mind and behavior whose clinical branch delivers assessment and psychotherapy. The two overlap heavily in the disorders they address and increasingly share an evidence base (Cuijpers et al., 2020).

How are mental disorders diagnosed?
Diagnosis matches a patient's symptoms, assessed through interview and history, against the explicit operational criteria of a manual such as the DSM: specified symptoms, in specified numbers, present for a specified duration. These criteria were introduced to make diagnosis reliable between clinicians, a precondition for research and communication (Kessler et al., 2005).

Are mental disorders categories or points on a continuum?
The manuals treat them as categories, but much evidence suggests that most disorders are extremes of continuous dimensions, without a natural break at the diagnostic threshold. Dimensional systems such as HiTOP have been proposed to describe where a person falls on correlated spectra rather than which discrete boxes they occupy (Kotov et al., 2017).

What is the biopsychosocial model?
Proposed by George Engel in 1977, it holds that illness must be understood across a hierarchy of interacting systems, biological, psychological, and social, rather than reduced to biochemistry alone. In psychiatry it underwrites the view that most disorders are multifactorial, arising from many partial causes acting together (Engel, 1977).

What is RDoC?
The Research Domain Criteria framework, launched by the National Institute of Mental Health, proposes to set the manual's diagnostic categories aside for research and instead study basic dimensions of functioning such as fear, reward, and cognitive control across their full range, indexed from genes to circuits to behavior (Insel et al., 2010).

How well do psychiatric treatments work?
Meta-analyses show that medications and structured psychotherapies produce real benefits over control conditions for the major disorders, but the average effects are moderate and no single treatment is best for everyone. The honest measure of benefit is often the number needed to treat rather than a cure rate (Cipriani et al., 2018).

What does it mean that a diagnosis is reliable but perhaps not valid?
Reliability means clinicians agree on the diagnosis; validity means the category corresponds to a real, distinct condition in nature. The operational manuals achieved reliability, but agreement alone does not guarantee that the agreed-upon category is a genuine disease entity rather than a useful convention (Hyman, 2010).

References

Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Chaimani, A., Atkinson, L. Z., Ogawa, Y., Leucht, S., Ruhe, H. G., Turner, E. H., Higgins, J. P. T., Egger, M., Takeshima, N., Hayasaka, Y., Imai, H., Shinohara, K., Tajika, A., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Geddes, J. R. (2018). Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet, 391(10128), 1357-1366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32802-7

Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Eckshtain, D., Ng, M. Y., Corteselli, K. A., Noma, H., Quero, S., & Weisz, J. R. (2020). Psychotherapy for depression across different age groups: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(7), 694-702. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0164

Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460

GBD 2019 Mental Disorders Collaborators. (2022). Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Psychiatry, 9(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00395-3

Hyman, S. E. (2010). The diagnosis of mental disorders: The problem of reification. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155-179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091532

Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Sanislow, C., & Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748-751. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379

Insel, T. R., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2015). Brain disorders? Precisely. Science, 348(6234), 499-500. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2358

Kendler, K. S. (2005). Toward a philosophical structure for psychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(3), 433-440. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.3.433

Kendler, K. S. (2016). The nature of psychiatric disorders. World Psychiatry, 15(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20292

Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593-602. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593

Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., Brown, T. A., Carpenter, W. T., Caspi, A., Clark, L. A., Eaton, N. R., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Goldberg, D., Hasin, D., Hyman, S. E., Ivanova, M. Y., Lynam, D. R., Markon, K., ... Zimmerman, M. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454-477. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258

Leucht, S., Cipriani, A., Spineli, L., Mavridis, D., Orey, D., Richter, F., Samara, M., Barbui, C., Engel, R. R., Geddes, J. R., Kissling, W., Stapf, M. P., Lässig, B., Salanti, G., & Davis, J. M. (2013). Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: A multiple-treatments meta-analysis. The Lancet, 382(9896), 951-962. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60733-3