RESUMO
Neuropsychiatric symptoms of neurocognitive disorders have been classified into higher-order constructs, often called neuropsychiatric syndromes. As with the general psychopathology literature, these classifications have been achieved through two approaches: empirical and authoritative. The authoritative approach relies on expert panels that condense the available evidence into operational criteria, whereas the empirical approach uses statistical methods to discover symptom patterns and possible hierarchies formed by them. In this article, the author reviews the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches using general psychopathology literature as a reference point. The authoritative approach, influenced by the DSM, has led to several sets of criteria, which could aid clinical trials, diagnostics, and communication. However, unknown reliability and the complex relationships between empirical evidence and published criteria may limit the utility of current criteria. The empirical approach has been used to explore syndrome structures on the basis of rating scales for neuropsychiatric symptoms. The structures suggested in these studies have not been replicated easily and have been limited by either small sample sizes, restricted breadth of neuropsychiatric assessment, or both. Suggestions for further development of both approaches are offered. First, neuropsychiatric symptoms and syndromes need to be studied with measures of broad scope and in large samples. These requirements are prerequisites not only for eliciting highly informative empirical classifications but also for understanding these symptoms at a more nuanced level. Second, both approaches could benefit from more transparency. Finally, the reliability of the available authoritative criteria should be examined.
