« Blood transcriptomic markers for early-onset major depression | Main | Two approaches to reducing inequality »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Fundamental flaws:

- Extrapolating an analog of human depression from rat behavior. Unknown what cognitive deficiencies or unpleasant physical sensations have been induced in rat.

- Given this, what the study has found is "marker" similarities between a (very small) human sample and unknown characteristics of specially bred rats.

- Very tiny study samples, easily influenced by researcher bias.

- Excessively optimistic projections of value of findings. False positive rates unknown.

If this were taken seriously by psychiatry, which it will be because psychiatry is an unusually gullible profession given to fads, it will be used as an argument to medicate children even if the blood test is not actually available.

Why? Because, simplistically, doctors (who should know better) will take this as evidence "depression" (however they define it) is biological and needs biological intervention, i.e. medication.

Now, you might say, researchers are not responsible for the way their research is interpreted. The architects of the atomic bomb did not designate it for Hiroshima. The DSM-5 is an inanimate object that won't reach out and diagnose anyone. Yet overdiagnosis and overmedication is rampant. Who is responsible?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Become a Fan