Executive Functions and the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: On the Importance of Subclinical Symptoms and Other Concomitant Factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although reviews concerning the neuropsychology of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) put great emphasis on impaired executive functioning, the overall conclusions are notoriously divergent. The main goal of the present study was to use a battery of neuropsychological tasks to assess nine cognitive domains with a special focus on executive functions in 40 patients with OCD. A secondary objective was to examine the relationships between clinical or demographic variables and neuropsychological performances. The third goal was to separate executive functions in more homogeneous components to verify whether specific impairment might be found in persons with OCD. Confirming the main hypothesis, few neuropsychological differences emerged between the OCD and healthy participants when concomitant factors were controlled. Moreover, subclinical symptoms appeared to play a different and independent role on the cognitive results. Future studies should include more specific tasks of lower-order executive functions among persons with OCD to confirm this possibility.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it