MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315563325 · doi:10.1037/a0036295

Response inhibition and psychopathology: A meta-analysis of go/no-go task performance.

2014· review· en· W2315563325 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Brain Institute
KeywordsPsychologyMeta-analysisPsychopathologyResponse inhibitionGo/no goEndophenotypeTask (project management)AnxietyCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryCognitionMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Response inhibition, defined as the ability to withhold a response, is considered to be a core deficit in various mental illnesses. Measures of response inhibition have been used to define functional deficits, as markers of genetic risk, in neuroimaging studies, and for diagnostic purposes in these disorders. However, the magnitude of the deficit across psychopathologies has not been systematically assessed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of performance on commonly used measures of the ability to withhold a response: go/no-go task, Conners' continuous performance task (CCPT), and sustained attention to response task (SART). The primary variable of interest in each of these tasks was commission errors (CE), which provides an index of one's ability to correctly withhold a response. In addition, we examined omission errors (OE) which are an index of sustained attention; and mean reaction time (RT; MRT). Three-hundred and 18 studies in 11 different psychiatric disorders met inclusion criteria. Weighted mean effect sizes (ESs) were calculated to measure the magnitude of the deficit. In general, we found low-to-medium ESs for commission errors ranging from g = -0.10 for anxiety disorder to medium ESs of g = 0.52 for bipolar disorder. Small-to-medium deficits in withholding were found in various disorders. Results indicate that deficits in withholding are insufficiently sensitive or specific to be used individually as a diagnostic measure or biomarker in most disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it