Cognitive effects of deep brain stimulation in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising treatment for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, the effects of DBS on cognitive functioning remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to assess cognitive safety of DBS for treatment-refractory OCD and the association between clinical changes and cognitive functioning. METHODS: Patients with treatment-refractory OCD treated with DBS targeted at the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) were compared with a control group of 14 patients with treatment-refractory OCD treated with care as usual. We assessed cognitive functioning at baseline, 3 weeks postoperatively and following 8 months of DBS. We compared change in clinical symptoms with cognitive changes. RESULTS: There were 16 patients in the DBS group and 14 patients in the control group. Three weeks postoperatively, the DBS group showed a significantly reduced performance on measures of visual organization and verbal fluency and a trend toward reduced performance on measures of visual memory and abstract reasoning. Cognitive functioning was found to be stable on all other measures. After 8 months of DBS, reduced performances persisted, except for a significant improvement in verbal fluency. Cognitive functioning in all other domains remained unaffected. We found no correlation between improvement of clinical symptoms and cognitive changes. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study was its relatively small sample size. CONCLUSION: Deep brain stimulation targeted at the NAcc may be considered a safe method in terms of cognition because cognitive functioning was unaffected on most neuropsychological measures. Nevertheless, we observed some minor reduced performance on specific measures of executive functioning that were possibly associated with surgical intervention. Our results suggest that severity of OCD symptoms is independent of cognitive functioning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".