Empirical Evidence for Cognitive Subgroups in Body Dysmorphic Disorder
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objective Current understanding of cognitive functioning in body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is limited, owing to few studies, small sample sizes, and assessment across only limited cognitive domains. Existing research has also shown inconsistent findings, with both intact and impaired cognition reported in BDD, which might point toward cognitive heterogeneity in the disorder. This study aimed to examine the cognitive profile of BDD in a large sample across eight cognitive domains, and to explore whether cognitive subgroups might be identified within BDD. Methods Cognitive domains of inhibition/flexibility, working memory, speed of processing, reasoning and problem-solving, visual and verbal learning, attention/vigilance and social cognition were assessed and compared between 65 BDD patients and 70 healthy controls. Then, hierarchical clustering analysis was conducted on the BDD group’s cognitive data. Results Group-average comparisons demonstrated significantly poorer cognitive functioning in BDD than healthy controls in all domains except for attention/vigilance and social cognition. Cluster analysis identified two divergent cognitive subgroups within our BDD cohort characterised by i ) broadly intact cognitive function with mild selective impairments (72.3%), and ii) broadly impaired cognitive function (27.7%). However, the clusters did not significantly differ on clinical parameters or most sociodemographic characteristics. Conclusion Cognitively diverse subgroups were identified within BDD, yet these were obscured in group-average comparisons. However, subgroup profiles of cognitive functioning seem unrelated to the clinical presentation of BDD. Further research into the underlying mechanisms of cognition in BDD is warranted. Significant Outcomes Cognitive function varies widely among people with body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and includes subgroups characterised by broadly intact or broadly impaired cognitive profiles. However, reduced performances in visual learning and working memory as relative to healthy participants were identified across both BDD cognitive subgroups to differing degrees. Clinical characteristics were not significantly different among the two BDD cognitive subgroups; what role cognitive functioning may play in the aetiology or presentation of BDD remains unclear. Limitations The output of clustering analysis is sensitive to the choice of variables entered and requires replication with analogous measures of cognition. Psychiatric comorbidities and medications could have impacted cognitive performances in the BDD group in an unaccounted-for manner. Data availability statement Author elects to not share data.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».