A Pilot Test of the Additive Benefits of Physical Exercise to CBT for OCD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of "responders" to first-line cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and pharmacological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are left with residual symptoms that are clinically relevant and disabling. Therefore, there is pressing need for widely accessible efficacious alternative and/or adjunctive treatments for OCD. Accumulating evidence suggests that physical exercise may be one such intervention in the mood and anxiety disorders broadly, although we are aware of only two positive small-scale pilot studies that have tested its clinical benefits in OCD. This pilot study aimed to test the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of adding a structured physical exercise programme to CBT for OCD. A standard CBT group was delivered concurrently with a 12-week customized exercise programme to 11 participants. The exercise regimen was individualized for each participant based on peak heart rate measured using an incremental maximal exercise test. Reports of exercise adherence across the 12-week regimen exceeded 80%. A paired-samples t-test indicated very large treatment effects in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores from pre- to post-treatment in CBT group cohorts led by expert CBT OCD specialists (d = 2.55) and junior CBT clinician non-OCD specialists (d = 2.12). These treatment effects are very large and exceed effects typically observed with individual and group-based CBT for OCD based on leading meta-analytic reviews, as well as previously obtained treatment effects for CBT using the same recruitment protocol without exercise. As such, this pilot work demonstrates the feasibility and significant potential clinical utility of a 12-week aerobic exercise programme delivered in conjunction with CBT for 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".