🧱 SECTION F — Research Domains (Green / Yellow / Red Audit)

(All items correspond to the research domains listed on the Psychiatry Wikipedia page.)

This section is revealing because it shows where psychiatry is trying to be a science — and where the substrate simply isn’t there yet.

✅ GREEN — Empirical, substrate‑anchored research domains#

These areas use measurable biological data, controlled experiments, or rigorous statistical methods. They are the scientific backbone of psychiatry.

Neuroimaging research#

• MRI, fMRI, PET, EEG, MEG
• Measures real physical signals
• Substrate: neural activity, blood flow, structural anatomy

Genetics research#

• GWAS, heritability studies, polygenic risk scores
• Empirical, reproducible, substrate‑anchored
• Substrate: DNA variation, gene expression

Psychopharmacology#

• Drug mechanism studies, receptor binding, dose‑response curves
• Strong empirical foundation
• Substrate: neurochemical systems

Epidemiology#

• Population‑level data, incidence, prevalence, risk factors
• Rigorous statistical methods
• Substrate: measurable population patterns

Clinical trials#

• Randomized controlled trials, placebo controls, outcome measures
• Gold standard scientific method
• Substrate: measurable treatment effects

Why these are green:
They operate on physical substrates, use rigorous methods, and produce falsifiable, reproducible data.

⚠️ YELLOW — Mixed validity, partially empirical, partially conceptual#

These domains use scientific tools but are limited by the lack of clear biological entities, conceptual drift, or interpretive frameworks.

Classification research#

• Attempts to refine DSM/ICD categories
• Uses empirical data, but categories themselves are not substrate‑anchored
• Substrate: partial; symptom‑based

Biomarker research (current state)#

• Uses scientific tools, but no validated biomarkers exist for most conditions
• Substrate: partial; exploratory

Interdisciplinary collaboration#

• Useful, but often mixes incompatible frameworks (e.g., sociology + biology)
• Substrate: mixed

Digital phenotyping / speech analysis#

• Promising, empirical, but early-stage and not validated
• Substrate: behavioral signals, not biological

Why these are yellow:
They use scientific methods, but the objects of study are not well‑defined or biologically grounded.

❌ RED — Non‑scientific, speculative, or structurally flawed research domains#

These areas lack substrate anchoring, rely on interpretive constructs, or attempt to validate categories that are not biologically real.

Research attempting to validate DSM categories as biological diseases#

• Reification of symptom clusters
• No biomarkers found despite decades of effort
• Substrate: none

Speculative evolutionary psychiatry research#

• Often unfalsifiable “just‑so stories”
• Substrate: none

Research based on outdated or disproven theories#

• “Chemical imbalance” research
• Freudian drive theory research
• Substrate: none

Studies using personality typologies with no empirical grounding#

• MBTI‑based research
• Enneagram‑based research
• Substrate: none

Why these are red:
They attempt to validate non‑scientific constructs or rely on unfalsifiable narratives.

🧩 Section F Structural Snapshot#

This section makes the field’s structural reality unmistakable:

Psychiatry’s research engine is strongest when it studies biology, weakest when it tries to validate its own diagnostic constructs.

That’s exactly the kind of insight our fork is designed to expose.