There is broad agreement that psychiatric diagnoses in their current form are not reflective of any underlying biology, and that this is one of the things hampering psychiatric drug development. “We are still fully reliant on descriptive diagnoses that yield heterogeneous patient cohorts,” Steve Hyman told the audience at the European Congress of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Roadmap Meeting on Precision Psychiatry in Amsterdam in January.

Despite the formidable challenges for developing precision psychiatry, the approach is notching its first successes in the preclinical and even some clinical settings. Many individual studies as well as large projects like the Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Markers studies and the Psychiatric Biomarkers Network have been looking at multiple biomarker types, and have begun to identify predictors of specific symptoms, or disease progression.

Despite the formidable challenges for developing precision psychiatry, the approach is notching its first successes in the preclinical and even some clinical settings. Many individual studies as well as large projects like the Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Markers studies and the Psychiatric Biomarkers Network have been looking at multiple biomarker types, and have begun to identify predictors of specific symptoms, or disease progression.

Psychiatry has struggled to enter the precision medicine era. But through a mix of innovations and bootstrapping, progress is coming to the field. Scientists are working on improving diagnoses by investigating potential biomarkers and collection methods.

Psychiatry has struggled to enter the precision medicine era. But through a mix of innovations and bootstrapping, progress is coming to the field. Scientists are working on improving diagnoses by investigating potential biomarkers and collection methods.

Despite the formidable challenges for developing precision psychiatry, the approach is notching its first successes in the preclinical and even some clinical settings. Many individual studies as well as large projects like the Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Markers (PRISM) studies and the Psychiatric Biomarkers Network (PBN) have been looking at multiple biomarker types, and have begun to identify predictors of specific symptoms, or disease progression.

Psychiatry has struggled to enter the precision medicine era. But through a mix of innovations and bootstrapping, progress is coming to the field. Scientists are working on improving diagnoses by investigating potential biomarkers and collection methods.

Researchers at the University of Rochester have described a neuroimaging-based biomarker that could identify individuals with early psychosis, and improved their identification when it was added to a standard neurocognitive diagnostic test. In a group of roughly 160 participants in the Human Connectome Early Psychosis Project, individuals who were in the early stages of psychosis had stronger connections from the thalamus (a midbrain sensory processing area) to the cortex, but weaker connections between different cortical areas, than controls.

Precision psychiatry got some love at two quite different meetings this week, the European Congress of Neuropsychopharmacology’s New Frontiers meeting and BioEurope Spring. The New Frontiers Meeting, an annual two-day meeting dedicated to cutting-edge issues in brain disease research, focused on big-picture and scientific – at times almost philosophical – questions of how to get to a classification scheme for brain disorders that aligns with the underlying biology.

To Steve Hyman, the manual that clinicians currently use to diagnose mental disorders is an active obstacle to getting a scientific understanding of those disorders. Hyman, who is director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard, and a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), listed multiple weaknesses of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), whose diagnoses, he said, are “arbitrary, rigid, life-stage and context-insensitive,” as well as blind to the fact that mental disorders exist along a continuum.