Assistant professor, lecturer, reviewed by post doc. It's an article that summarizes stuff nicely referencing papers.
> but does not go as far as establishing a causal relationship
I love how the attitude is: here is a drug that you would think would cause side-effects and tolerance...which is does...and then the onus is on everyone to conclusively prove that it's bad. Smoke until we realize it causes cancer. Take opiates until we realize they are extremely addictive in certain packaging.
It's very much carefree experimentation on the world, rather than being risk-averse and acknowledging what we don't know.
It is common sense that the body will seek homeostasis to deal with this artificially increased dopamine levels. Which this study seems to indicate.
But it comes down to risk-appetite.
> DSM-IV vs. DSM-5.
We changed the diagnosis criteria and got: surprise, 27% increase in expected prevalence. How convenient.
The diagnosis criteria are just made up. The cause is not proven at all. There is no biomarker or imagery that can diagnose the condition successfully.
So patients present with an impairment...then you look at who has the impairment and craft the criteria such that it explains the impairment. Its a circular definition and extremely broad.