This would facilitate the identification of “biomarkers” (objective http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Dapagliflozin.html quantifiable changes in brain function) of the mental disorder in question. The longer-term aim was then to use these biomarkers to test the effects of drug

treatment or behavioral therapy, ie, to use them as quantitative measures of the effectiveness of treatment in restoring “normality” As a research enterprise, the application of neuroimaging with the above aims has resulted in a very Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical large number of studies and an impressive number of research publications in many of the major psychiatric and neuroscience journals, particularly in the case of fMRI. In 2003, barely a decade after the appearance Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of fMRI as a viable imaging tool, it was possible to list, in a book entitled Neuroimaging in Psychiatry3 produced by a number of my colleagues in London as well as eminent researchers from other centers,

hundreds of research papers involving MR (as well as a large number from longer established methodologies such as Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical PET). Since 2003 the knowledge base in this area has continued to expand at an impressive rate and, reading the literature to date, one might well conclude that fMRI has had a considerable impact on our understanding of abnormalities in brain function and structure. However, one might ask a different but no less important question. Standing as we do, almost two decades after

the appearance of fMRI and having (as we do) access to widely available Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and reasonably reliable methods of analyzing brain imaging data, has brain imaging started to make an impact on the clinical issues of interest? Has brain imaging materially altered the pressing issues of the diagnosis and treatment of brain disorders? Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical This issue was the subject of a recent editorial in the British Journal of Psychiatry by Bullmore et al4: “Why psychiatry can’t afford to be neurophobic.” One of the issues raised in that article is “the reality of psychiatric practice in the UK, where there is currently agreed to be no clear role for neuroimaging, biomarkers or genetic testing.” The main question in relation to imaging is why the large number of research studies have not been translated Resminostat into clear beneficial effects in clinical practice. This is clearly a complex and multifactorial issue, but the aim of the present contribution is to examine the simple question of whether neuroimaging is asking the appropriate questions of the data to maximize its relevance to psychiatry and drug discovery and development. For an interesting discussion of the general issue of using neuroimaging to understand brain function, see ref 5.