{"title":"精神分裂症的现代概念:叙事回顾。","authors":"Aleksey Pavlichenko, Natalia Petrova, Andrey Stolyarov","doi":"10.17816/CP15513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Schizoaffective disorder (SAD) is one of the most complex and controversial diagnoses in clinical psychiatry. Despite the significant changes that have occurred in the conceptualization of SAD in modern classifications and the publications of recent years, many unresolved issues remain regarding the disease, from the point of view of clinical psychiatry and basic neuroscience.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The purpose of this paper is to summarize published data on the concept of SAD, its clinical characteristics, cognitive profile, potential biomarkers, as well as the place of the disease in the following modern international classifications: the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9<sup>th</sup>, 10<sup>th</sup> and 11<sup>th</sup> revisions, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5<sup>th</sup> edition (DSM-5).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a review of the scientific studies in the relevant bibliographic systems and databases (eLIBRARY, PubMed) of the past 15 years. The descriptive analysis method was used to summarize the collected information. A total of 70 publications were selected for review, including different versions of international classifications of diseases (ICD and DSM-5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There has been some improvement in the inter-rater reliability of SAD criteria in modern classifications, but this has not yet led to a clearer understanding among mental health specialists, while the various subtypes of SAD identified so far fail to account for the heterogeneity in the clinical presentation of the disorder. The dimensional approach to diagnosing SAD, according to which the intensity of psychotic and affective symptoms can fluctuate over time and they can influence one another, more accurately reflects the disease's ability to embody different forms. Basic research does not support the identification of a distinct cognitive, neuroimaging, or immunological SAD endophenotype that differs qualitatively from schizophrenia and affective psychoses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The conceptualization of SAD remains incomplete, and new approaches rooted in neuroscience are needed to better understand the coexistence of affective and psychotic symptoms.</p>","PeriodicalId":519873,"journal":{"name":"Consortium psychiatricum","volume":"5 3","pages":"42-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Modern Concept of Schizoaffective Disorder: A Narrative Review.\",\"authors\":\"Aleksey Pavlichenko, Natalia Petrova, Andrey Stolyarov\",\"doi\":\"10.17816/CP15513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Schizoaffective disorder (SAD) is one of the most complex and controversial diagnoses in clinical psychiatry. Despite the significant changes that have occurred in the conceptualization of SAD in modern classifications and the publications of recent years, many unresolved issues remain regarding the disease, from the point of view of clinical psychiatry and basic neuroscience.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The purpose of this paper is to summarize published data on the concept of SAD, its clinical characteristics, cognitive profile, potential biomarkers, as well as the place of the disease in the following modern international classifications: the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9<sup>th</sup>, 10<sup>th</sup> and 11<sup>th</sup> revisions, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5<sup>th</sup> edition (DSM-5).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a review of the scientific studies in the relevant bibliographic systems and databases (eLIBRARY, PubMed) of the past 15 years. The descriptive analysis method was used to summarize the collected information. A total of 70 publications were selected for review, including different versions of international classifications of diseases (ICD and DSM-5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There has been some improvement in the inter-rater reliability of SAD criteria in modern classifications, but this has not yet led to a clearer understanding among mental health specialists, while the various subtypes of SAD identified so far fail to account for the heterogeneity in the clinical presentation of the disorder. The dimensional approach to diagnosing SAD, according to which the intensity of psychotic and affective symptoms can fluctuate over time and they can influence one another, more accurately reflects the disease's ability to embody different forms. Basic research does not support the identification of a distinct cognitive, neuroimaging, or immunological SAD endophenotype that differs qualitatively from schizophrenia and affective psychoses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The conceptualization of SAD remains incomplete, and new approaches rooted in neuroscience are needed to better understand the coexistence of affective and psychotic symptoms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519873,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Consortium psychiatricum\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"42-55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542913/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Consortium psychiatricum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17816/CP15513\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Consortium psychiatricum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17816/CP15513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:分裂情感障碍(SAD)是临床精神病学中最复杂、最具争议性的诊断之一。尽管在现代分类和近年来的出版物中,SAD 的概念发生了重大变化,但从临床精神病学和基础神经科学的角度来看,该疾病仍存在许多悬而未决的问题。目的:本文旨在总结已发表的有关 SAD 概念、临床特征、认知概况、潜在生物标志物的数据,以及该疾病在以下现代国际分类中的地位:《国际疾病分类》(ICD)第 9 版、第 10 版和第 11 版,以及《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第 5 版(DSM-5):我们对过去 15 年相关书目系统和数据库(eLIBRARY、PubMed)中的科学研究进行了回顾。我们采用了描述性分析方法来总结收集到的信息。共选取了 70 篇出版物进行审查,其中包括不同版本的国际疾病分类(ICD 和 DSM-5):结果:现代分类中的 SAD 标准在评分者之间的可靠性方面有了一些改进,但这并没有使心理健康专家对其有更清晰的认识,而迄今为止所确定的各种 SAD 亚型也未能解释该疾病临床表现的异质性。诊断 SAD 的维度方法认为,精神症状和情感症状的强度可以随着时间的推移而波动,并且它们可以相互影响,这种方法更准确地反映了该疾病体现不同形式的能力。基础研究并不支持确定一种在认知、神经影像学或免疫学方面与精神分裂症和情感性精神病有质的区别的独特的 SAD 内表型:SAD 的概念仍不完整,需要以神经科学为基础的新方法来更好地理解情感症状和精神病性症状的共存。
The Modern Concept of Schizoaffective Disorder: A Narrative Review.
Background: Schizoaffective disorder (SAD) is one of the most complex and controversial diagnoses in clinical psychiatry. Despite the significant changes that have occurred in the conceptualization of SAD in modern classifications and the publications of recent years, many unresolved issues remain regarding the disease, from the point of view of clinical psychiatry and basic neuroscience.
Aim: The purpose of this paper is to summarize published data on the concept of SAD, its clinical characteristics, cognitive profile, potential biomarkers, as well as the place of the disease in the following modern international classifications: the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th, 10th and 11th revisions, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5).
Methods: We undertook a review of the scientific studies in the relevant bibliographic systems and databases (eLIBRARY, PubMed) of the past 15 years. The descriptive analysis method was used to summarize the collected information. A total of 70 publications were selected for review, including different versions of international classifications of diseases (ICD and DSM-5).
Results: There has been some improvement in the inter-rater reliability of SAD criteria in modern classifications, but this has not yet led to a clearer understanding among mental health specialists, while the various subtypes of SAD identified so far fail to account for the heterogeneity in the clinical presentation of the disorder. The dimensional approach to diagnosing SAD, according to which the intensity of psychotic and affective symptoms can fluctuate over time and they can influence one another, more accurately reflects the disease's ability to embody different forms. Basic research does not support the identification of a distinct cognitive, neuroimaging, or immunological SAD endophenotype that differs qualitatively from schizophrenia and affective psychoses.
Conclusion: The conceptualization of SAD remains incomplete, and new approaches rooted in neuroscience are needed to better understand the coexistence of affective and psychotic symptoms.