ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Relearning the epistemology, history, and future of neuropsychiatry.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuropsychiatry is a transdisciplinary field at the intersection of neuroscience, psychiatry, neurology, and humanities. Despite this strategic position, a comprehensive framework is still needed to bridge these domains. This review examines the historical evolution of how neurological, mental, and neuropsychiatric symptoms have been conceptualized, from antiquity to contemporary models, using the brain-body dilemma as a guiding thread. This historical analysis provides the epistemological and ontological foundations of neuropsychiatry, which are then connected with current definitions to critically assess the field's persistent tensions. Building on this foundation, a renewed paradigm is proposed where a crosstalk between them is enabled, grounded in deep phenotyping, dimensional research frameworks [e.g., Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP)], and integrative models linking biological, psychometric, social data, and subjective experience. Special attention is given to a "subjectomic" layer that aims to systematically incorporate lived experience. Finally, reforms in education, clinical practice, and research are advocated to foster this conceptual reorientation, aiming at interdisciplinary collaboration and advancing patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.