Kraepelinian dichotomy explained
The Kraepelinian dichotomy is the division of the major endogenous psychoses into the disease concepts of dementia praecox, which was reformulated as schizophrenia by Eugen Bleuler by 1908,[1] and manic-depressive psychosis, which has now been reconceived as bipolar disorder. This division was formally introduced in the sixth edition of Emil Kraepelin's psychiatric textbook Psychiatrie. Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende und Aerzte, published in 1899. It has been highly influential on modern psychiatric classification systems, the DSM and ICD, and is reflected in the taxonomic separation of schizophrenia from affective psychosis. However, there is also a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder to cover cases that seem to show symptoms of both.
History
The Kraepelinian system and the modern classification of psychoses are ultimately derived from the insights of Karl Kahlbaum. In 1863 the Prussian psychiatrist published his habilitation which was entitled, Die Gruppierung der psychischen Krankheiten (The Classification of Psychiatric Diseases). In this text he reviewed the then heterogeneous state of medical taxonomies of mental illness and enumerated the existence of some thirty such nosologies from the early seventeenth-century until the mid-nineteenth-century. The major contribution of his published dissertation, which is still the foundation of modern psychiatric nosology, was to first formulate the clinical method for the classification of psychosis by symptom, course and outcome.
Kahlbaum also differentiated between two major groups of mental illnesses which he termed vecordia and vesania.
Emil Kraepelin first introduced his proposed dichotomy between the endogenous psychoses of manic-depressive illness and dementia praecox during a public lecture in Heidelberg, Germany on 27 November 1898.
See also
Bibliography
- 57. 1. 5–13. Angst. J.. Historical aspects of the dichotomy between manic-depressive disorders and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research. 2002. 10.1016/S0920-9964(02)00328-6. 12165371. 33585559.
- 258. 107–10. Angst. J.. A. . Gamma. Diagnosis and course of affective psychoses: was Kraepelin right?. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2008. 10.1007/s00406-008-2013-2. 18516522. 34384739.
- 3. 2. 111–40. Berrios. German E.. Rogelio. Luque. José M.. Villagrán. Schizophrenia: a conceptual history. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 2003.
- 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2008.01230.x. 0001-690X. 118. 3. 172–87. Bora. E.. M.. Yucel. A.. Fornito. M.. Berk. C.. Pantelis. Major psychoses with mixed psychotic and mood symptoms: are mixed psychoses associated with different neurobiological markers?. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2008. 18699952. 205802830.
- Briole, G. (2012). "Emil Kraepelin: The Fragility of a Colossal Oeuvre". Hurly-Burly 8: 125–147.
- Craddock. N.. Owen. M.J.. The beginning of the end for the Kraepelinian dichotomy . British Journal of Psychiatry . 186 . 5. 364–6 . 2005. 15863738 . 10.1192/bjp.186.5.364. free.
- 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.073429. 0007-1250. 196. 2. 92–5. Craddock. N.. M. J. . Owen. The Kraepelinian dichotomy - going, going... but still not gone. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2010. 20118450. 2815936.
- 103. 1–3. 156–60. Crow. T. J.. Craddock & Owen vs Kraepelin: 85 years late, mesmerised by 'polygenes'. Schizophrenia Research. 2008. 10.1016/j.schres.2008.03.001. 18434093. 12676461.
- 11. 4. 324–31. Cuesta. M. J.. V.. Peralta. Psychopathological assessment of schizophrenia: relevance for classification. Current Psychiatry Reports. 2009. 10.1007/s11920-009-0047-4. 19635242. 34738750.
- Decker. Hannah S.. How Kraepelinian was Kraepelin? How Kraepelinian are the neo-Kraepelinians? - from Emil Kraepelin to the DSM-III. History of Psychiatry. 2007. 18. 3. 337–60. 10.1177/0957154X07078976. 18175636. 19754009.
- 258. 25–8. deVries. M. W. Multifactorial inheritance, rates of maturation and psychiatry's taxonomic dilemma. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2008. 10.1007/s00406-008-2005-2. 18516513. 19974805.
- 34. 9. 2081–7. Fischer. B. A.. W. T.. Carpenter. Will the Kraepelinian Dichotomy Survive DSM-V?. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009 . 19295511 . 10.1038/npp.2009.32. 2721021.
- 10.1007/s00406-008-2009-y. 258. Suppl. 2. 41–7. Gaebel. W.. J. . Zielasek. The DSM-V initiative "deconstructing psychosis" in the context of Kraepelin's concept on nosology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2008. 18516517. 29574424.
- Greene. Talya. The Kraepelinian dichotomy: the twin pillars crumbling?. History of Psychiatry. 2007. 18. 3. 361–79. 10.1177/0957154X07078977. 18175637. 12158661.
- 10.1007/s00406-008-2011-4. 258. Suppl. 2. 85–96. Häfner. Heinz. Wolfram an der. Heiden. Kurt . Maurer. Evidence for separate diseases?. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2008. 18516520. 24800860.
- 10.1007/s00406-008-2001-6. 258. Suppl. 2. 3–11. Hippius. H.. N.. Müller. The work of Emil Kraepelin and his research group in München. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2008. 18516510. 29850296.
- 39. 2. 95–100. Jablensky. Assen. The conflict of the nosologists: views on schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness in the early part of the 20th century. Schizophrenia Research. 1999. 10.1016/S0920-9964(99)00106-1. 10507518. 27097154.
- Jablensky. Assen. Living in a Kraepelinian world. Kraepelin's impact on modern psychiatry. History of Psychiatry. 18. 3. 2007. 381–8. 10.1177/0957154X07079690. 18175638. 33487387.
- Book: Kahlbaum, Karl Ludwig. Kafemann. Die Gruppierung der psychischen Krankheiten und die Eintheilung der Seelenstörungen: Entwurf einer historisch-kritischen Darstellung der bisherigen Eintheilungen und Versuch zur Anbahnung einer empirisch-wissenschaftlichen Grundlage der Psychiatrie als klinischer Disciplin. Danzig. 1863.
- 2. 1. 91–7. Lake. Charles Ray. Nathaniel. Hurwitz. Schizoaffective Disorder—Its Rise and Fall: Perspectives for DSM-V. Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses. 2008. 10.3371/csrp.2.1.8.
- 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00763.x. 0001-690X. 113. 5. 369–371. Maier. Wolfgang. Do schizoaffective disorders exist at all?. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2006. 16603028. 22029255. free.
- 56. 1–2. 87–94. Möller. Hans-Jürgen. R.. Bottlender. A. Gross. P.. Hoff. J.. Wittmann. U.. Wegner. A.. Strauss. The Kraepelinian dichotomy: preliminary results of a 15-year follow-up study on functional psychoses: focus on negative symptoms. Schizophrenia Research. 2002. 10.1016/S0920-9964(01)00252-3. 12084423. 28477589.
- 10.1007/s00406-008-2004-3. 258. Suppl. 2. 48–73. Möller. Hans-Jürgen. Systematic of psychiatric disorders between categorical and dimensional approaches: Kraepelin's dichotomy and beyond. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2008. 18516518. 35482134.
- 258. 97–106. Müller. N.. M. J. Schwarz. A psychoneuroimmunological perspective to Emil Kraepelins dichotomy. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2008. 10.1007/s00406-008-2012-3. 18516521. 25050832.
- Book: Noll, Richard. The Encyclopedia of Schizophrenia and other Psychotic Disorders. 3rd. 2007. Infobase Publishing. New York. 978-0-8160-6405-2.
- 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2011.02226.x. 65. 4. 318–325. Palm. Ulrich. Hans-Jürgen. Möller. Reception of Kraepelin's ideas 1900–1960. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 2011. 21682810. free.
- Pilgrim. D.. The biopsychosocial model in Anglo-American psychiatry: past, present and future. Journal of Mental Health. 11. 6. 2002. 585–94. 10.1080/09638230020023930. 10.1.1.413.4801. 17957615.
- 1086-3303. 3. 1. 1–14. Radden. Jennifer. Lumps and Bumps:Kantian Faculty Psychology, Phrenology, and Twentieth-Century Psychiatric Classification. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology. 1996. 10.1353/ppp.1996.0008. 143590585.
- 21. 4. 383–403. Roelcke. Volker. Biologizing social facts: An early 20th century debate on Kraepelin's concepts of culture, neurasthenia, and degeneration. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry. 1997. 10.1023/A:1005393121931. 9492972. 30190500.
- Rogler. L.H.. 1997. Making Sense of Historical Changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Five Propositions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 38. 1. 9–20. 9097505. 10.2307/2955358. 2955358.
- 7. Suppl 1. S68. Stefanis. N.. Genes do not read DSM-IV: implications for psychosis classification. Annals of General Psychiatry. 2008. 10.1186/1744-859X-7-S1-S68. free.
Notes and References
- Web site: Yuhas. Daisy. Throughout History, Defining Schizophrenia Has Remained a Challenge. March 2013 . Scientific American Mind (March 2013). 2 March 2013.