Diagnosis in psychiatry faces familiar challenges. Validity and utility remain elusive, and confusion regarding the fluid and arbitrary border between mental health and illness is increasing. The mainstream strategy has been conservative and iterative, retaining current nosology until something better emerges. However, this has led to stagnation. New conceptual frameworks are urgently required to catalyze a genuine paradigm shift.

We outline candidate strategies that could pave the way for such a paradigm shift. These include the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), and Clinical Staging, which all promote a blend of dimensional and categorical approaches.

These alternative still heuristic transdiagnostic models provide varying levels of clinical and research utility. RDoC was intended to provide a framework to reorient research beyond the constraints of DSM. HiTOP began as a nosology derived from statistical methods and is now pursuing clinical utility. Clinical Staging aims to both expand the scope and refine the utility of diagnosis by the inclusion of the dimension of timing. None is yet fit for purpose. Yet they are relatively complementary, and it may be possible for them to operate as an ecosystem. Time will tell whether they have the capacity singly or jointly to deliver a paradigm shift.

Several heuristic models have been developed that separately or synergistically build infrastructure to enable new transdiagnostic research to define the structure, development, and mechanisms of mental disorders, to guide treatment and better meet the needs of patients, policymakers, and society.

Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists offer a new approach, but there is uncertainty regarding their effects, exact mechanism of action and potential role in treating psychosis.

To evaluate the available evidence on TAAR1 agonists in psychosis, using triangulation of the output of living systematic reviews (LSRs) of animal and human studies, and provide recommendations for future research prioritisation.

This study is part of GALENOS (Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis). In the triangulation process, a multidisciplinary group of experts, including those with lived experience, met and appraised the first co-produced living systematic reviews from GALENOS, on TAAR1 agonists.

The animal data suggested a potential antipsychotic effect, as TAAR1 agonists reduced locomotor activity induced by pro-psychotic drug treatment. Human studies showed few differences for ulotaront and ralmitaront compared with placebo in improving overall symptoms in adults with acute schizophrenia (four studies, n = 1291 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.34). Large placebo responses were seen in ulotaront phase three trials. Ralmitaront was less efficacious than risperidone (one study, n = 156 participants, SMD = −0.53, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.20). The side-effect profile of TAAR1 agonists was favourable compared with existing antipsychotics. Priorities for future studies included (a) using different animal models of psychosis with greater translational validity; (b) animal and human studies with wider outcomes including cognitive and affective symptoms and (c) mechanistic studies and investigations of other potential applications, such as adjunctive treatments and long-term outcomes. Recommendations for future iterations of the LSRs included (a) meta-analysis of individual human participant data, (b) including studies that used different methodologies and (c) assessing other disorders and symptoms.

This co-produced, international triangulation examined the available evidence and developed recommendations for future research and clinical applications for TAAR1 agonists in psychosis. Broader challenges included difficulties in assessing the risk of bias, reproducibility, translation and interpretability of animal models to clinical outcomes, and a lack of individual and clinical characteristics in the human data. The research will inform a separate, independent prioritisation process, led by lived experience experts, to prioritise directions for future research.