Amanda Miller was 30, pregnant with her second child, and living in Hershey, Pennsylvania, when depression set in. It deepened after she gave birth and arrived alongside a string of health problems no one could explain. Miller, a neuroscientist herself, cycled through several psychiatrists and, over two years, four antidepressants and two antipsychotics. Nothing worked.
The turning point came from outside psychiatry. Her primary care doctor spotted elevated levels of an autoimmune marker in her blood. A specialist then ran, in Miller's words, "every test in the book," and the result was a diagnosis of lupus. She was prescribed a steroid to lower inflammation. Some symptoms eased within hours, and her depression lifted not long after.
Miller believes inflammation was driving her mental health symptoms all along, though she acknowledges she cannot know that for certain. What she is certain of is that none of the psychiatrists she saw ever raised the possibility. That gap is the crux of a growing conversation about whether psychiatry should lean more on measurable biological markers rather than relying solely on symptom checklists to guide diagnosis and prescribing.
For patients, the stakes are practical. Two years of trial-and-error medication is two years of side effects, expense, and continued illness, especially when a treatable physical condition sits behind the symptoms. Blood-based markers have already reshaped how doctors approach conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, and Miller's case illustrates why some in the field want that thinking extended to psychiatric care.