Bases épistémologiques de la recherche sur les psychoses. Quelle solution pour le choc des paradigmes?

A Brain Imaging-Based Diagnostic Biomarker for Periodic Catatonia: Preliminary Evidence Using a Bayesian Approach

“…While departing from our model-based approach, supervised linear or nonlinear classifiers could take this advantage even further [67]. Yet, the switch to unsupervised approaches [68] would be in clear-cut opposition with our hypothesis-driven strategy: automatic classifiers are designed to identify new biotypes while we intend to validate biomarkers of known phenotypes [56].…”

“…Yet, this illustrates how categorical and dimensional research programs are making sufficiently different predictions to be confronted on functional brain measures. We already called for the implementation of such crucial experimental series [56]. This is the primary aim of our follow-up study for which we are looking for collaborations especially in an adversarial perspective [57].…”

Wernicke-Kleist-Leonhard phenotypes of endogenouspsychoses: a review of their validity

“…The traditional biomedical paradigm starts from phenotypes rather than consensus-based disorders . Embracing the naturalistic framework , 4 it posits that a disease is a natural entity defined by an etio-pathophysiological model which accounts for the phenotype. 5 The model is given at the biological level, assuming a single and rare cause of major effect due to selection pressure.…”

“…The major strength of this approach stems from this model validity or validity per se which translational research converts into the magic triplet of applied medicine: diagnosis, diagnostic test, and treatment. 4 …”

“… 8 , 9 Here a disease is defined as a pathological deviance , ie, a mere deviation from the norm, which makes the implicit hypothesis of multiple and frequent causes of very small effects. 4 These are typically referred to as risk factors or modifiers in medicine rather than diseases, and translate into much less efficient interventions. 4 …”