The American Psychiatric Association published a January paper exploring how psychiatric biomarkers—biological indicators of mental illness detectable through diagnostic tests—could be incorporated into future versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The DSM serves as psychiatry’s foundational diagnostic tool and is used by clinicians and insurance companies to determine treatment coverage. However, the APA emphasized that psychiatric biomarkers are not yet ready for widespread clinical use and that more research is needed to prove their validity and reliability.
Currently, mental illnesses are diagnosed and treated based on outward symptoms, unlike most other medical specialties where tests confirm diagnoses. Jonathan Alpert, an author of the APA paper, noted that access to test results combined with symptoms could streamline insurance coverage decisions and enable faster, more accurate diagnoses and treatment recommendations. In a seminal early 2000s trial funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, about 30% of study participants with depression saw symptoms disappear with their first antidepressant—a trial-and-error approach that prescribing psychiatric medications currently requires.
In depression, approximately a quarter of patients have elevated levels of C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker detectable through blood tests. Research suggests that people with high levels of this protein respond better to drugs that alter dopamine levels rather than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. However, the APA’s paper notes that C-reactive protein still needs to be “robustly validated” as a biomarker. A “coordinated, well-funded” research effort is needed to achieve such validation, the APA wrote—a prospect made tenuous by recent funding cuts. The National Institute of Mental Health canceled at least 128 grants worth almost $173 million in 2025, according to a research letter in JAMA.
Concerns about implementation include potential insurance discrimination against individuals with biological profiles suggesting risk, impacts on health care costs, and patient privacy. Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics called this a “critical moment” to consider legislative protections and clinician training.
This article is an AI-assisted summary. All facts and figures are drawn from the original report: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2026/03/12/major-change-mental-health-diagnoses/89075127007/