Restoring the missing person to personalized medicine and precision psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision psychiatry has emerged as part of the shift to personalized medicine and builds on frameworks such as the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), multilevel biological "omics" data and, most recently, computational psychiatry. The shift is prompted by the realization that a one-size-fits all approach is inadequate to guide clinical care because people differ in ways that are not captured by broad diagnostic categories. One of the first steps in developing this personalized approach to treatment was the use of genetic markers to guide pharmacotherapeutics based on predictions of pharmacological response or non-response, and the potential risk of adverse drug reactions. Advances in technology have made a greater degree of specificity or precision potentially more attainable. To date, however, the search for precision has largely focused on biological parameters. Psychiatric disorders involve multi-level dynamics that require measures of phenomenological, psychological, behavioral, social structural, and cultural dimensions. This points to the need to develop more fine-grained analyses of experience, self-construal, illness narratives, interpersonal interactional dynamics, and social contexts and determinants of health. In this paper, we review the limitations of precision psychiatry arguing that it cannot reach its goal if it does not include core elements of the processes that give rise to psychopathological states, which include the agency and experience of the person. Drawing from contemporary systems biology, social epidemiology, developmental psychology, and cognitive science, we propose a cultural-ecosocial approach to integrating precision psychiatry with person-centered care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".