This page was translated automatically from Turkish. Read the original

Bu sayfa, 26. Dünya Psikiyatri Kongresi'nde sunulan çalışmanın yapay zekâ desteğiyle hazırlanmış Türkçe özetidir. Çalışmanın sahibi sunan yazarlardır; atıf için orijinal kaynağa başvurun.

EV0293

Is depression a coherent ontological category? A philosophical analysis of diagnostic validity in psychiatric nosology

IS DEPRESSION A COHERENT ONTOLOGICAL CATEGORY? A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC VALIDITY IN PSYCHIATRIC NOSOLOGY

Depression should be understood not as a unified natural kind but as a loosely bounded and causally heterogeneous syndrome, because there is no necessary property uniting all cases or natural boundary separating it from ordinary sadness.

The aim is to evaluate the ontological status of depression within the frameworks of philosophy of science and philosophy of psychiatry, and to determine which framework best accommodates its heterogeneity in etiology, phenomenology, neurobiology, and course. The method was a critical integrative review of the philosophical and empirical literature spanning 2000–2025, assessing depression against four ontological frameworks: natural kinds, homeostatic property clusters, mechanistic property clusters, and social constructionism. The empirical record shows the following: Fried and Nesse’s 2015 study identified 1,030 distinct symptom profiles among 3,703 STAR*D outpatients; 864 of these profiles (83.9%) were reported by five or fewer patients, 501 by a single patient, and the most common profile had a frequency of 1.8%; Zimmerman’s 2015 study observed 170 of the 227 possible combinations of criteria among 1,566 patients with major depressive disorder, with the most common combination—all nine criteria—occurring in 10.1%; Fried’s 2020 combinatorial analysis of the DSM-5 criteria yielded 227 distinct diagnostic pathways when compound criteria were disregarded, 10,377 when they were included, and 341,737 for the melancholic specifier. Haslam’s 2012 and 2020 studies examined 177 and 183 taxometric articles and 533,377 participants, finding no compelling evidence for taxa in mood disorders; dimensional findings outnumbered taxonic findings by five to one. According to the authors, depression does not meet the criteria for a natural kind: there is no necessary property or lawful regularity uniting all cases, its course and treatment response are heterogeneous, and taxometric analyses have not identified a discontinuity separating it from ordinary sadness; the framework most consistent with the evidence is the mechanistic property cluster, but only if the assumption of a single disease entity is abandoned. The authors emphasize that this does not mean depression is unreal or that the label is useless, noting that the diagnosis of major depressive disorder may retain pragmatic value for communication, reimbursement, and research eligibility. In conclusion, they recommend that treatment studies report findings by symptom profile and mechanism, rather than solely by diagnosis; that melancholic, inflammatory, and anhedonic subtypes be tested as kinds in their own right; and that the label’s pragmatic, non-essentialist status be explicitly acknowledged in classification manuals.

Tüm WCP 2026 özetleri