Submitted by friday_panda t3_10ijx5q in askscience
sharplydressedman t1_j5idqp7 wrote
There have been decades of research trying to identify biomarkers and structural differences in individuals with neuropsychiatric diseases, using imaging (MRI, fMRI), electrical activity (EEG), or serum markers (blood work) . In major depressive disorder for example, there have been associations made with changes in the prefrontal cortex, thalamus, hypothalamus etc. as seen on MRI. However these findings are neither sensitive nor specific, so psychiatric/behavioral disorders such as MDD is still a clinical diagnosis.
I should make the distinction that there are some psychiatric diseases result from structural diseases of the brain. E.g. Alzheimer's disease, Lewy body dementia, Parkinson's disease, all have distinctive findings on MRI and can have psychiatric symptoms. However most people with psychiatric disorders do not have obvious neurological disease that can be identified with imaging.
There is a lot of research and development in the field, and there is a great effort in psychiatry to incorporate objective measurements to validate clinical findings. So our understanding of neuropsychiatric diseases is likely to change dramatically in the coming years, once we develop the tools to understand these disorders better.
HighlandHiker t1_j5up3ja wrote
Quick add-on: Test specificity is how good it is at a positive result being a true positive result (not false positive). Sensitivity is the same for negative results (true negative, not false negative). A test with good specificity and/or sensitivity can be useful as a tool. Worse sensitivity and specificity make it less useful.
fe_feron t1_j5xkp3j wrote
Aren't psychiatric disorders subjective - on the level of one's 'private' personal perception of the world? How does "objective measurement" help understand the cause and effect of something that appears on the subjective level? Can we be sure it originates at the material level?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments