Neuropsychological performance in childhood OCD: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuropsychological deficits have often been found in studies of adults with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). However, few studies have examined such impairment in children with OCD and of those studies published, the results are mixed. METHODS: In the present study, 14 OCD children were compared to 24 healthy developing children of similar age and intellectual ability on a series of neuropsychological tests that assess response inhibition, abstract reasoning and problem solving, planning ability, verbal and nonverbal fluency, working memory, attention and information processing speed, and visual and verbal memory and learning. RESULTS: No significant differences emerged between the children with OCD and healthy controls for working memory, verbal fluency, attention, information processing speed, concept formation/abstraction, and response inhibition. We observed some deficits and a trend toward performance differences between the groups for psychomotor speed and attention, cognitive flexibility, nonverbal fluency, planning ability, and verbal memory and learning. Results are partially consistent with those found in adults with OCD. Findings were not related to depressive symptoms or self-report feeling of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary survey indicates that OCD children may have deficits for cognitive flexibility and planning ability and differ from adults with OCD in not presenting with poor response inhibition or memory deficits. Larger, multi-site studies are warranted to help delineate the neurocognitive deficits associated with childhood OCD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".