Subtyping XXXX : A comparison of positive/negative and system-specific approaches.

@entity1 @entity2653 @entity161 @entity74
BACKGROUND: @entity161 is a @entity74 . Over the years, different approaches have been proposed to approach this heterogeneity by categorizing symptom patterns. The study aimed to compare positive/negative and system-specific approaches to subtyping. METHODS: We used the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and @entity2653 ( @entity2653 ), which consists of subscales for three domains (language, affect and motor behavior) that are hypothesized to be related to specific brain circuits, to assess cross-sectional psychopathological characteristics in a sample of 100 inpatients with @entity161 spectrum disorders. We then categorized @entity1 into positive/negative and system-specific subgroups to allow comparisons of the two approaches. RESULTS: The analyses revealed correlations between the PANSS positive subscore and the @entity2653 affective subscore (r=.446, p<.001) and between the PANSS negative subscore and the @entity2653 motor behavior subscore (r=.227, p=.023). As regards the positive and negative subtype, more @entity1 were classified as positive in the language-dominant subtype (30.3%) and affect-dominant subtype (30.3%), whereas more were classified as negative in the motor behavior-dominant subtype (44.4%). However, most @entity1 met the criteria for the mixed subtype. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the positive/negative and system-specific approaches can be regarded as complementary. Future studies should examine both approaches in a longitudinal assessment of psychopathological symptoms and link them with qualitative-phenomenological approaches.
