[Neuropsychological profile of childhood-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review paper, studies focusing on the neuropsychological characteristics of childhood-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were evaluated. The literature search covered the MedLine and PsycInfo databases through June 2006. The presented results are of those that focus on the processes of attention, memory, and executive functions related to the aspects of the measured instruments used. The aim of this review was to provide a general neuropsychological profile of childhood-onset OCD based on the reviewed studies. In general, results showed that there is no clear evidence that the neuropsychological aspects of childhood-onset OCD differ from those of adult-onset OCD. In parallel with this, the processes of attention and memory in OCD are observed to be selective and biased, and this bias is directed towards threat-relevant stimuli related to obsessions and compulsions. In addition, dysfunction in memory and visuospatial processes in OCD patients do not result from memory impairment per se, but rather from an impaired ability to apply efficiently elaborated strategies. In childhood-onset OCD, the various lines of evidence consistently include impairment of response suppression and motor inhibition abilities; there is less consistent evidence for reduced set shifting, fluency, conceptual thinking, and planning ability. Whereas clinical observation suggests that a central problem in OCD is at the meta-memory level and that people with OCD have less meta-cognitive ability, processing of meta-cognition in childhood-onset OCD has not been investigated adequately. Finally, the results of the reviewed studies were evaluated in terms of the effects of basic co-morbidity, such as depression, Tourette's disorder, tic disorder, and other confounding variables.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".