Search

The DSM-5 introduces major modifications in the category of mental disorders due to brain lesions compared to the previous DSM versions, which are reviewed in this paper. The description of the category Major neurocognitive disorder, as a substitute for dementia, seems to fit better for patients and families, and more adapted to many neurodegenerative cognitive disorders for which memory impairment is not predominant. Similarly, the introduction of the category of Mild neurocognitive disorder appears to be an improvement although some difficulty still remains for distinguishing mild cognitive disorder from normal aging. The addition of new etiological categories such as fronto-temporal NCD or NCD with Lewy bodies should also to be considered as a significant improvement. Despite these advances, to circumscribe the mental disorders due to brain lesions to cognitive deficits and biological mechanisms remains highly questionable, and does not provide an adequate care for the patients and families if not complemented by a psychological and environmental approach.

Rapid cyclers are defined by the occurrence of four or more mood episodes during the previous 12 months. Clinical, epidemiological and population characteristics of these patients are presented as well as studies that validate them. Hypotheses and theoretical models allowing their analysis are reviewed. The last part of the paper deals with treatments.

There is a second wave of research following the interest in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) that explores a vast number of other conditions with some superficial similarity to OCD. These have in common an inability to delay or inhibit repetitive behaviors. While some interesting pharmacological treatment trials have emerged, few of the studies have truly explored the idea of a spectrum from the neurobiological point of view. Only for Tourette's Disorder, Trichotillomania and possibly Sydenham's Chorea have there been convincing biological evidence for continuity with OCD.

The untiring questioning on the part of the two sources, somatic and psychological, in illness make a pair with contradistinction between "clinical" research and "scientific" research. However, they are good theoretic and pragmatic arguments in favour of their complementarity and full respective lawfullness. In this purpose, one had to scrutinize the explicit and implicit definitions, too often adulterated by presuppositions and exclusive preferences.