Distinct Subcortical Volume Alterations in Pediatric and Adult OCD: A Worldwide Meta- and Mega-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Structural brain imaging studies in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have produced inconsistent findings. This may be partially due to limited statistical power from relatively small samples and clinical heterogeneity related to variation in illness profile and developmental stage. To address these limitations, the authors conducted meta- and mega-analyses of data from OCD sites worldwide. METHOD: images from 1,830 OCD patients and 1,759 control subjects were analyzed, using coordinated and standardized processing, to identify subcortical brain volumes that differ between OCD patients and healthy subjects. The authors performed a meta-analysis on the mean of the left and right hemisphere measures of each subcortical structure, and they performed a mega-analysis by pooling these volumetric measurements from each site. The authors additionally examined potential modulating effects of clinical characteristics on morphological differences in OCD patients. RESULTS: The meta-analysis indicated that adult patients had significantly smaller hippocampal volumes (Cohen's d=-0.13; % difference=-2.80) and larger pallidum volumes (d=0.16; % difference=3.16) compared with adult controls. Both effects were stronger in medicated patients compared with controls (d=-0.29, % difference=-4.18, and d=0.29, % difference=4.38, respectively). Unmedicated pediatric patients had significantly larger thalamic volumes (d=0.38, % difference=3.08) compared with pediatric controls. None of these findings were mediated by sample characteristics, such as mean age or scanning field strength. The mega-analysis yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate different patterns of subcortical abnormalities in pediatric and adult OCD patients. The pallidum and hippocampus seem to be of importance in adult OCD, whereas the thalamus seems to be key in pediatric OCD. These findings highlight the potential importance of neurodevelopmental alterations in OCD and suggest that further research on neuroplasticity in OCD may be useful.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".