Neuropsychiatry – Subject, Concepts, Methods, and Computational Models

Tretter, Felix; Gebicke‐Haerter, Peter J.

doi:10.1002/9783527630271.ch2

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 89 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I concur with the growing insight that much like many physical illnesses, psychiatric disorders are multifactorial systems requiring a pluralist research strategy (Kendler, 2014) and that systems biology should be one of the pillars for modern research in the field of psychopathology and psychiatry (Buitelaar, 2012;McIntosh, 2013;Tretter et al 2010;van der Stel, 2009). In contrast to psychology, psychopathology (psychiatry) hardly uses the notion of function or dysfunction.…”

Section: What Do You Consider the Most Important Problems In (Philoso...mentioning

confidence: 65%

Systems Biology Through the Concept of Emergence

Kolodkin

2016

Philosophy of Systems Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: What Do You Consider the Most Important Problems In (Philoso...mentioning

confidence: 65%

Systems Biology Through the Concept of Emergence

Kolodkin

2016

Philosophy of Systems Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These graph-theoretical analytic tools for data analysis are a next processing step after multivariate statistical analysis in order to identify functional proximity of active elements in the network (e.g., expressing genes). Also in context of biological psychiatry a huge increase of in-detail knowledge of brain chemistry came up by these high-throughput technologies and by graph-theoretical analytical tools ( Tretter et al, 2010 ; Tretter and Gebicke-Haerter, 2012 ). This led to the “omics”-related “network turn” in neuropsychiatry that aims to inventory the molecular structure of the genome, the transcriptome, the proeteome and the metabolome.…”

Section: Systems Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Steps Toward an Integrative Clinical Systems Psychology

Tretter

Löffler‐Stastka

2018

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical fields of the “sciences of the mind” (psychotherapy, psychiatry, etc.) lack integrative conceptual frameworks that have explanatory power. Mainly descriptive-classificatory taxonomies like DSM dominate the field. New taxonomies such as Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) aim to collect scientific knowledge regarding “systems” for “processes” of the brain. These terms have a supradisciplinary” meaning if they are considered in context of Systems Science. This field emerges as a platform of theories like general systems theory, catastrophe theory, synergetics, chaos theory, etc. It provides a lot of abstract concepts, constructs, methods and models. We assume that these tools also enable theoretical integration in the diversified field of clinical practice in the sciences of the mind. Additionally, systems thinking in clinical psychology improves conceptual links to currently network-oriented neurobiology. However, clear definitions of systemic terms are necessary to emerge from their mainly metaphorical use. Here we revise mainly terms like “structure”, “process” and “dynamics” as they are used already in psychology, psychoanalysis, psychopathology and psychiatry in an ill-defined way. For instance, affective-cognitive structures like “life space” or “object representations” can be seen as products of mental processing. These structures, in turn, modulate dynamics of mental processes. Additionally, we suggest a coupled network concept of emotions and motivations as the main subsystem that modulates mental dynamics that results in a qualitative systemic model of the mind. Finally, we assume that a revisited systemic approach could improve interdisciplinary understanding of the mental.

show abstract

Systems Biology in Psychiatric Research: From Complex Data Sets Over Wiring Diagrams to Computer Simulations

Tretter

Gebicke‐Haerter

2011

Methods in Molecular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The classification of psychiatric disorders has always been a problem in clinical settings. The present debate about the major systems in clinical practice, DSM-IV and ICD-10, has resulted in attempts to improve and replace those schemes by some that include more endophenotypic and molecular features. However, these disorders not only require more precise diagnostic tools, but also have to be viewed more extensively in their dynamic behaviors, which require more precise data sets related to their origins and developments. This enormous challenge in brain research has to be approached on different levels of the biological system by new methods, including improvements in electroencephalography, brain imaging, and molecular biology. All these methods entail accumulations of large data sets that become more and more difficult to interpret. In particular, on the molecular level, there is an apparent need to use highly sophisticated computer programs to tackle these problems. Evidently, only interdisciplinary work among mathematicians, physicists, biologists, and clinicians can further improve our understanding of complex diseases of the brain.

show abstract

Neuropsychiatry – Subject, Concepts, Methods, and Computational Models

Cited by 3 publications

References 89 publications

Systems Biology Through the Concept of Emergence

Systems Biology Through the Concept of Emergence

Steps Toward an Integrative Clinical Systems Psychology

Systems Biology in Psychiatric Research: From Complex Data Sets Over Wiring Diagrams to Computer Simulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About