Exploring how neurological function, psychological experience, and environmental demands interact—and why the future of stress management requires a more comprehensive understanding of human health.
Imagine two individuals experiencing persistent fatigue, difficulty concentrating, emotional irritability, and disrupted sleep.
The first has been navigating several months of demanding work responsibilities, financial uncertainty, and interpersonal conflict.
The second developed similar symptoms following a neurological illness.
Although their experiences overlap, the processes contributing to their symptoms may be considerably different.
For one individual, changes in daily routines, persistent psychological demands, and inadequate recovery may be important contributing factors.
For the other, neurological dysfunction may directly influence cognitive and emotional functioning while simultaneously creating new psychological and social challenges.
In both cases, the symptoms are real.
Both individuals may experience substantial distress.
And both may require a comprehensive understanding of the relationships among brain function, behavior, subjective experience, and environmental circumstances.
These examples raise a fundamental question:
Where does neurological health end and psychological health begin?
Traditionally, healthcare has organized neurological and psychological concerns into different professional specialties.
Neurology primarily investigates disorders affecting the nervous system, while psychiatry investigates mental disorders involving cognition, mood, perception, and behavior.
These distinctions serve important clinical purposes.
However, advances in neuroscience increasingly reveal that neurological and psychological phenomena are often interconnected.
In 2024, researchers published Neuropsychiatric Constructs as Bridges Between Psychopathology and Neuropathology: A Medical Perspective in Springer's Review of Philosophy and Psychology.
The authors examined how clinicians and researchers can understand conditions involving meaningful relationships between neurological pathology and psychological symptoms.
Their work challenges overly simplistic distinctions between physical and psychological health while emphasizing that scientific explanations must be supported by appropriate evidence.
More recent publications in Nature Reviews Neurology, Nature Mental Health, Neuropsychopharmacology, and Communications Medicine have expanded this discussion through research on brain networks, stress physiology, and integrated models of health.
Together, these investigations suggest a broader principle:
Our psychological experiences emerge through the activity of a living nervous system that continuously interacts with the body, personal history, and surrounding environment.
Understanding these relationships offers important insights into how we experience stress, why individuals respond differently to similar challenges, and how comprehensive healthcare can better support adaptive functioning.
1. Why We Traditionally Separate Neurological and Psychological Health
Modern healthcare has developed through increasing specialization.
This has produced extraordinary advances in diagnostic capabilities, treatment techniques, and scientific understanding.
Neurologists investigate conditions affecting the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system.
Psychiatrists diagnose and treat mental disorders involving emotional, cognitive, perceptual, and behavioral disturbances.
Psychologists investigate psychological functioning and, depending on their qualifications, provide assessment and psychotherapy.
Each profession contributes specialized expertise.
However, the boundaries between these fields do not necessarily reflect distinct biological systems.
For example, neurological conditions can influence mood, motivation, personality, and behavior.
Conversely, psychological stress may influence sleep, pain perception, autonomic regulation, and other aspects of physical functioning.
The 2024 Springer paper describes neuropsychiatry as an interdisciplinary field concerned with clinically significant relationships between neurological pathology and psychological disturbance.
Importantly, the authors do not suggest that every psychiatric symptom necessarily results from an identifiable neurological lesion.
Rather, they emphasize that neurological and psychiatric explanations operate at different but potentially connected levels.
Understanding those connections requires careful scientific and clinical reasoning.
2. The Difference Between Illness, Disease, and Subjective Experience
One of the most valuable distinctions in the Springer paper concerns the relationship between illness and disease.
Illness describes the lived experience of suffering, discomfort, and impaired well-being.
Disease refers to pathological processes that can be characterized through established anatomical, physiological, or other scientific criteria.
These concepts often overlap, but they are not identical.
A person may experience considerable fatigue, dizziness, or cognitive difficulty even when conventional testing does not identify a definitive cause.
Conversely, an individual may have measurable pathological changes without experiencing prominent subjective symptoms.
This distinction matters because subjective experiences cannot simply be dismissed when they are not explained by routine tests.
However, it is equally important not to assume that every unexplained symptom reflects a hidden neurological disease.
The scientific challenge is determining which interpretations are supported by available evidence.
Within stress management, subjective experience provides important information about how individuals perceive and respond to their circumstances.
Two people can experience similar external demands while reporting very different levels of distress.
Those differences may reflect personal history, coping resources, physiological conditions, expectations, and environmental circumstances.
The experience of stress is not determined solely by the external event. It also depends on the individual experiencing it.
3. Three Dimensions of Psychological Function
The 2024 paper proposes examining psychological functioning through three complementary dimensions.
Observable Behavior
Behavior refers to the actions through which individuals interact with their environment.
Examples include social engagement, withdrawal, communication, movement, and responses to challenging circumstances.
Behavior provides useful information about functional adaptation.
However, observable behavior does not always reveal the person's internal experience.
Someone may appear calm while experiencing substantial distress.
Another individual may demonstrate visible agitation without being able to clearly describe its cause.
Subjective Experience
Subjective experience concerns the first-person qualities of thoughts, emotions, sensations, and perceptions.
It includes how individuals interpret events and describe their experiences.
This dimension is essential because objective measurements cannot fully replace the individual's account of their suffering.
For example, heart rate measurements may provide information about cardiovascular activity, but they cannot independently reveal whether someone feels threatened, excited, frustrated, or emotionally overwhelmed.
Neuropsychological Processes
Neuropsychological processes include attention, memory, language, reasoning, emotional evaluation, executive function, and related cognitive activities.
These processes contribute to the relationship between sensory information, subjective experience, and behavior.
The authors argue that understanding psychological phenomena requires considering the interaction of these dimensions.
This perspective is particularly useful for stress.
Stress may influence attention and behavior, while changes in attention and interpretation can also shape how stressful a situation feels.
4. The Brain Does Not Control Stress Through One Isolated Region
Popular explanations sometimes describe stress as the result of one brain region becoming overactive.
For example, the amygdala is frequently portrayed as the brain's threat center, while the prefrontal cortex is described as its rational control center.
These descriptions can be useful introductory metaphors, but they oversimplify neuroscience.
Stress-related functions emerge through distributed networks.
The amygdala contributes to processing biologically significant information, including potential threats.
The hippocampus participates in contextual memory and learning.
Prefrontal networks contribute to planning, decision-making, attention, and aspects of emotional regulation.
The hypothalamus coordinates several autonomic and endocrine responses.
Brainstem circuits contribute to arousal, cardiovascular regulation, and other essential physiological functions.
These systems interact continuously.
Their activity also depends on sensory information, previous experiences, physiological state, and behavioral context.
Consequently, stress cannot be adequately explained as a simple struggle between emotional and rational brain regions.
The stress response is a coordinated process involving neural networks, bodily systems, and environmental information.
5. How Neurological Dysfunction Can Influence Psychological Experience
The relationship between brain function and psychological experience becomes particularly apparent in neurological disease.
The 2024 Springer paper presents several clinical examples in which neurological abnormalities coexist with significant psychological or behavioral changes.
These include cases involving brain lesions, encephalopathy, infectious disease, and autoimmune encephalitis.
In one example, an individual developed disturbances in language, attention, and perception associated with an intracranial infection.
The neurological findings helped explain several aspects of the presentation.
However, understanding the complete psychological experience required more than identifying the location of a lesion.
Another example involved an individual who experienced severe illness and neurological injury following COVID-19.
The patient subsequently developed cognitive difficulties and significant depressive symptoms while also experiencing major personal losses.
The case illustrated how biological injury and psychosocial adversity may coexist and interact.
These examples reinforce an important distinction.
Neurological disease can sometimes contribute directly to psychological symptoms.
However, psychological suffering also reflects how individuals experience their circumstances, relationships, and functional limitations.
The presence of a neurological abnormality does not eliminate the relevance of psychological and social factors.
6. Why the Neurology–Psychiatry Boundary Is Becoming More Complex
A 2024 review published in Nature Reviews Neurology, Rare Genetic Brain Disorders With Overlapping Neurological and Psychiatric Phenotypes, examines conditions involving both neurological and psychiatric manifestations.
The authors discuss how traditional specialty boundaries can complicate understanding of disorders that affect multiple aspects of nervous system function.
Similarly, a September 2026 publication in Neuropsychopharmacology, Psychiatry in Neurodegenerative Disease: Toward a Unified Neurobiological Framework, discusses the psychiatric features of neurological conditions.
Parkinson's disease, for example, is commonly associated with movement difficulties.
However, individuals may also experience depression, anxiety, motivational changes, or cognitive symptoms.
Other neurological conditions can produce similarly diverse presentations.
These observations illustrate why comprehensive assessment sometimes requires expertise from more than one specialty.
However, the overlap between neurological and psychiatric symptoms should not be interpreted as evidence that all mental disorders can be identified through standard neurological imaging.
Many psychiatric conditions do not have a single established neuroimaging biomarker suitable for individual diagnosis.
The broader scientific direction is toward understanding relationships across levels of analysis while preserving appropriate diagnostic standards.
7. Stress as an Interaction Between Brain, Body, and Environment
Stress provides a particularly useful example of why biological and psychological explanations cannot always be separated.
Consider an individual facing an unexpected occupational challenge.
The situation may require heightened attention and rapid decision-making.
Their nervous system evaluates the significance of the demand while coordinating physiological responses.
Autonomic activity may change.
Hormonal signaling may influence energy availability.
Muscle tension, breathing patterns, and cardiovascular activity may also change.
At the same time, the individual interprets the circumstances.
They may perceive the challenge as manageable, threatening, exciting, or overwhelming.
Those interpretations can influence behavior.
The person may seek assistance, develop a plan, avoid the task, or respond impulsively.
These behaviors can subsequently alter the external circumstances.
Stress therefore involves an ongoing relationship among perception, physiology, action, and environmental feedback.
This is why effective stress management cannot always be reduced to one relaxation technique or physiological measurement.
8. Allostasis: How the Brain Anticipates and Regulates Demands
A particularly important concept connecting neuroscience and stress physiology is allostasis.
Homeostasis describes the maintenance of physiological conditions within ranges compatible with life.
Allostasis emphasizes achieving stability through adaptive change.
Rather than simply reacting after a physiological variable has changed, the nervous system can anticipate demands and coordinate appropriate responses.
For example, preparing to exercise involves adjustments in cardiovascular function, respiration, and metabolic regulation.
Likewise, anticipating an important conversation may influence attention and autonomic activity before the interaction begins.
These responses are not automatically pathological.
They are part of adaptive regulation.
However, repeated or prolonged activation of stress-related systems may contribute to cumulative physiological burden.
This concept is commonly described as allostatic load.
A 2026 review in Neuropsychopharmacology, The Role of Brain Health and Resilience in Reshaping Trajectories of Late-Life Neuropsychiatric Disorders, discusses interactions among stress, allostatic regulation, and brain health.
The authors describe how cumulative demands may influence neuroendocrine, immune, cardiovascular, and metabolic processes.
However, allostatic load cannot be accurately inferred from one isolated biomarker.
Its assessment requires careful interpretation of multiple physiological and clinical factors.
9. Why Stress Can Influence Thinking and Behavior
Stress can alter the allocation of attention and cognitive resources.
During a challenging event, greater attention may be directed toward information considered immediately relevant.
This can be useful when rapid responses are necessary.
However, under some circumstances, persistent stress may interfere with concentration, working memory, decision-making, and flexible problem-solving.
These effects are influenced by the intensity and duration of stress, previous experiences, sleep, and other conditions.
For example, inadequate sleep may worsen attention and emotional regulation.
Persistent worry may consume cognitive resources that would otherwise be available for other tasks.
Pain or illness may introduce additional demands on attention.
These relationships help explain why someone experiencing prolonged stress may feel mentally exhausted even without substantial physical activity.
However, difficulties concentrating are nonspecific.
They may also occur with sleep disorders, medications, neurological conditions, depression, or other medical concerns.
Appropriate assessment should therefore avoid assuming that stress is the sole explanation.
10. Shared Brain Networks and Different Psychological Symptoms
Recent neuroscience increasingly investigates how psychiatric symptoms may overlap across traditional diagnostic categories.
A 2026 study in Nature Communications, Brain Network Dynamics Reflect Psychiatric Illness Status and Transdiagnostic Symptom Profiles Across Health and Disease, explored relationships between brain network activity and symptom dimensions.
The researchers examined patterns that extended across traditional psychiatric diagnoses.
This type of work is important because symptoms such as reduced motivation, impaired concentration, or emotional distress may occur in multiple conditions.
The underlying neural systems also participate in many different functions.
However, group-level brain imaging findings do not automatically provide diagnostic information for one individual.
This distinction is particularly important when discussing stress-related neurological technologies.
An EEG, quantitative EEG, or functional brain imaging result should not be interpreted as proof of a specific psychological condition without validated clinical evidence.
Emerging neuroscience can improve scientific understanding without immediately becoming an established diagnostic tool.
11. Functional Neurological Symptoms and the Complexity of Brain–Behavior Relationships
Another area illustrating the overlap between neurological and psychological processes is functional neurological disorder, or FND.
FND involves genuine neurological symptoms associated with alterations in nervous system functioning.
Symptoms can affect movement, sensation, or other neurological functions.
Importantly, FND is not diagnosed merely because routine tests are normal.
Diagnosis should be based on appropriate positive clinical findings and a professional neurological assessment.
A 2025 perspective in Nature Reviews Psychology, How Insights From Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Can Inform Treatment of Functional Neurological Disorder, examines potential similarities involving emotion processing, interoception, self-appraisal, dissociation, and stress-related processes.
The researchers propose that understanding shared mechanisms may help inform future treatment development.
However, FND and posttraumatic stress disorder are distinct conditions.
Trauma is not necessary for an FND diagnosis, and the presence of FND does not imply that symptoms are consciously produced.
The relevance to broader stress education lies in understanding that neurological function, psychological experience, and bodily awareness can influence one another in complex ways.
This does not mean ordinary stress-management coaching constitutes treatment for FND or trauma-related psychiatric conditions.
12. The Difference Between Association and Causation
One of the strongest contributions of the 2024 Springer paper is its emphasis on scientific explanation.
The authors describe three complementary approaches for investigating relationships between neurological and psychological phenomena.
The first involves clinical epidemiology.
Researchers examine whether particular symptoms occur more frequently among individuals with specific neurological conditions.
The second involves clinical neuroscience.
Researchers investigate mechanisms that could explain the observed relationships.
The third involves longitudinal study of individual cases.
Observing how symptoms and biological findings change over time may provide additional information about possible causal relationships.
These approaches are particularly valuable when used together.
For example, suppose researchers discover an association between an inflammatory marker and psychological distress.
That finding alone does not establish that inflammation caused the distress.
The marker may reflect another medical condition.
Psychological stress may also influence inflammatory activity.
Or both may be affected by additional factors.
Stronger causal conclusions require appropriate research designs and converging evidence.
This principle is essential for responsibly interpreting claims about hormones, inflammation, neurotransmitters, gut microbiota, and mental health.
13. Why the Biopsychosocial Model Needs to Become More Causal
In 1977, psychiatrist George Engel proposed the biopsychosocial model as a response to overly narrow biomedical explanations of disease.
The model emphasized the importance of considering biological, psychological, and social influences together.
Nearly fifty years later, a 2026 perspective published in Communications Medicine, Applying a Causal Biopsychosocial Model to Guide Medicine and Psychiatry Fifty Years After Engel, argues that this framework remains important but is often used too superficially.
The author observes that simply listing biological, psychological, and social factors does not explain how they interact.
For example, identifying sleep disruption, workplace stress, and elevated blood pressure does not establish a causal relationship among them.
A more rigorous model asks how those factors influence one another.
Does workplace stress contribute to insufficient sleep?
Does sleep disruption influence cardiovascular regulation?
Does poor sleep alter the individual's capacity to manage workplace demands?
Are other medical or environmental factors contributing?
These questions create testable explanations.
They also provide a stronger foundation for selecting interventions.
A comprehensive model of health should not merely identify multiple contributing factors. It should investigate the relationships among them.
14. Why the Same Stressor Can Produce Different Outcomes
Individual responses to stress vary considerably.
These differences can reflect genetic susceptibility, previous experiences, physical health, environmental conditions, and available resources.
For example, a demanding work schedule may be manageable for someone with adequate recovery time, supportive relationships, and sufficient autonomy.
The same schedule may be overwhelming for someone experiencing chronic illness, financial insecurity, or inadequate sleep.
Likewise, a socially challenging experience may be interpreted differently according to past relationships and personal expectations.
These differences do not mean that stress is entirely subjective.
External demands and resource limitations can be substantial and measurable.
However, the consequences of a stressor arise through interactions between those demands and the individual's adaptive capacity.
This perspective supports personalized stress management.
Instead of prescribing identical strategies to everyone, it encourages understanding the circumstances and constraints influencing each person.
15. Stress Resilience Is More Than Psychological Toughness
Resilience is often described as the ability to recover from adversity.
However, scientific models increasingly view resilience as a dynamic process rather than a fixed personality characteristic.
A 2024 study in Nature Mental Health, Stress-Resilience Impacts Psychological Wellbeing as Evidenced by Brain–Gut Microbiome Interactions, investigated relationships among resilience, brain imaging, and microbiome-related measures.
The authors identified associations involving psychological outcomes, brain connectivity, and microbial activity.
However, the study was observational and cannot establish whether microbiome differences caused resilience.
Nevertheless, the findings illustrate the interest in studying resilience across multiple biological and psychological systems.
Resilience also depends on environmental resources.
Access to supportive relationships, financial stability, safe living conditions, and appropriate healthcare can influence the capacity to manage difficult circumstances.
Consequently, resilience should not be reduced to the ability to endure greater stress without assistance.
It also involves having the conditions and resources necessary for effective adaptation.
16. The Role of Lifestyle in Supporting Brain and Psychological Health
Although neuropsychiatry is a specialized clinical field, its broader scientific principles reinforce the importance of lifestyle-related health.
Sleep, physical activity, nutrition, social relationships, and stress-management behaviors can influence multiple physiological systems.
Sleep supports attention, memory, emotional regulation, and metabolic processes.
Physical activity contributes to cardiovascular and metabolic health and may support psychological well-being.
Adequate nutrition supports normal nervous system function.
Supportive relationships can provide practical and emotional resources during challenging circumstances.
However, these benefits should not be overstated.
Lifestyle interventions do not replace appropriate treatment for neurological or psychiatric disease.
Nor can improvements in sleep, nutrition, or exercise be assumed to correct a particular brain-network abnormality.
The value of these interventions lies in their demonstrated contributions to relevant aspects of health and their potential to complement other forms of care.
17. Why Comprehensive Assessment Matters
When someone experiences persistent stress-related symptoms, it can be tempting to attribute everything to psychological strain.
However, symptoms such as fatigue, poor concentration, disrupted sleep, dizziness, or changes in mood may have multiple possible explanations.
Some may reflect behavioral or environmental demands.
Others may be associated with medical conditions, medications, nutritional deficiencies, sleep disorders, or neurological dysfunction.
Psychiatric conditions may also coexist with physical illness.
Therefore, appropriate assessment should consider relevant alternatives rather than automatically assigning one cause.
For example, persistent fatigue may warrant consideration of sleep disorders or other medical concerns.
Cognitive changes following a head injury may require neurological assessment.
Sudden confusion, new neurological deficits, seizures, or rapidly progressive behavioral changes require prompt medical evaluation.
A comprehensive approach does not mean ordering every possible laboratory or imaging test.
It means selecting appropriate investigations according to the clinical presentation and established indications.
18. An Individualized Approach: Understanding the Person, Not Just the Symptom
One important principle emerging from the Springer paper is the value of understanding the individual case over time.
Population-level research identifies general patterns.
However, individual experiences may differ substantially from population averages.
A person's current symptoms may reflect several interacting influences.
Their personal history, biological health, daily habits, social circumstances, and available support can all be relevant.
Longitudinal assessment can help identify patterns.
For example, changes in sleep, daily activity, and perceived stress may help individuals recognize relationships between behavior and well-being.
However, observing that two measurements change together does not establish that one caused the other.
The goal is to develop increasingly informed hypotheses and adjust strategies according to meaningful outcomes.
This approach is consistent with personalized health coaching and responsible clinical reasoning.
19. What This Means for Stress Well
Our Stress Well philosophy recognizes that stress is not exclusively a psychological experience or a physiological response.
It reflects ongoing interactions among the nervous system, bodily processes, personal experiences, behaviors, and environmental demands.
The emerging science connecting neurology, psychology, and systems biology provides a valuable foundation for understanding these interactions.
Our approach emphasizes education and practical strategies that support adaptive capacity.
Depending on the individual's circumstances, this may involve exploring sleep patterns, physical activity, nutritional habits, recovery behaviors, social support, and modifiable sources of stress.
We also recognize the importance of assessing the demands being placed on the individual.
Sometimes improving stress management involves developing new coping skills or daily habits.
In other situations, it involves addressing inadequate recovery, changing unrealistic expectations, strengthening support, or identifying medical concerns that require further evaluation.
Our objective is not to interpret every psychological symptom as evidence of neurological dysfunction.
Nor do we claim that wellness testing can diagnose psychiatric disorders or determine the cause of complex psychological experiences.
When appropriate, we support collaboration with qualified mental health professionals, neurologists, primary care clinicians, and other healthcare providers.
This approach allows lifestyle education and wellness support to complement specialized care without replacing it.
20. The Future of Stress Management: From Isolated Symptoms to Interacting Systems
The growing convergence of neuroscience, psychology, and systems biology is changing how researchers understand human health.
Rather than examining psychological symptoms, neurological processes, and environmental influences as unrelated phenomena, researchers are developing models that investigate their interactions.
These models may eventually improve disease classification, identify meaningful biomarkers, and guide more individualized interventions.
However, the scientific process remains ongoing.
Complex relationships require careful investigation, appropriate measurements, and rigorous evaluation of causality.
The most valuable insight for stress management is not that every experience can be explained through brain imaging or laboratory testing.
It is that human adaptation depends on multiple interacting systems.
Psychological experiences influence behavior.
Behavior can influence physiological function.
Physiological conditions can affect perception and cognitive performance.
And environmental circumstances shape the demands and resources available to the individual.
Effective support therefore requires considering these relationships together.
Conclusion: Understanding Stress Means Understanding the Whole Person
The relationship between neurological function and psychological experience is more complex than traditional specialty boundaries sometimes suggest.
Neural networks contribute to cognition, emotion, behavior, and physiological regulation.
However, those processes also unfold within a person who has a history, relationships, responsibilities, preferences, and environmental circumstances.
The 2024 Springer paper provides an important conceptual foundation for investigating these relationships.
More recent Nature Portfolio research reinforces the value of integrated models involving brain networks, stress physiology, resilience, and causal interactions among biological, psychological, and social factors.
Together, these findings encourage a more comprehensive understanding of stress.
Stress is not simply something that happens in the mind or something that happens in the body. It is an adaptive process involving the whole person in continuous interaction with their environment.
We believe this perspective offers a valuable foundation for individualized stress education and lifestyle support.
Rather than relying on one explanation or one intervention, the goal is to understand the factors influencing the individual's adaptive capacity and identify appropriate opportunities to improve long-term health and well-being.
Research References
Ramírez-Bermúdez J, Pérez-Gay Juarez F, Aliseda A. Neuropsychiatric constructs as bridges between psychopathology and neuropathology: a medical perspective. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. Published 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-024-00759-4
von Känel R. Applying a causal biopsychosocial model to guide medicine and psychiatry fifty years after Engel. Communications Medicine. 2026;6:322. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-026-01700-9
Peall KJ, Owen MJ, Hall J. Rare genetic brain disorders with overlapping neurological and psychiatric phenotypes. Nature Reviews Neurology. 2024;20:7–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-023-00896-x
Bradley ER, Holmes SE. Psychiatry in neurodegenerative disease: toward a unified neurobiological framework. Neuropsychopharmacology. Published September 18, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-026-02560-6
Brain network dynamics reflect psychiatric illness status and transdiagnostic symptom profiles across health and disease. Nature Communications. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-75585-6
Putica A, Agathos J, Felmingham K. How insights from posttraumatic stress disorder can inform treatment of functional neurological disorder. Nature Reviews Psychology. 2025;4:654–668. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00479-1
Stress-resilience impacts psychological wellbeing as evidenced by brain–gut microbiome interactions. Nature Mental Health. 2024;2:935–950. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00266-6
The role of brain health and resilience in reshaping trajectories of late-life neuropsychiatric disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-026-02332-2
Multimodal brain imaging of insomnia, depression and anxiety symptoms indicates transdiagnostic commonalities and differences. Nature Mental Health. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00412-8
Vieira S, Bolton TAW, Schöttner M, et al. Multivariate brain-behaviour associations in psychiatric disorders. Translational Psychiatry. 2024;14:231. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-024-02954-4