Structural alterations in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder: a surface-based analysis of cortical volume, surface area and thickness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence indicates the presence of structural brain alterations in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Findings are, however, rather heterogeneous, which may be partly because of differences in methodological approaches or clinical sample characteristics. The aim of the present study was to analyze the whole brain cortical volume, surface area and thickness in a large sample of patients with OCD compared with age- and sex-matched healthy controls. METHODS: < 0.05). Altered brain regions and their average morphological values were associated to symptom severity and type (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale scores). RESULTS: We included 75 patients and 75 controls in our analyses. Patients with OCD showed decreases in both volume and surface area compared with healthy controls in inferior-superior parieto-occipital regions. In addition, the precuneus, posterior cingulate areas, middle frontal and orbitofrontal areas, and middle inferior temporal areas extending to the fusiform gyrus were characterized by a reduced surface area only. There were no differences in grey matter thickness between the groups. LIMITATIONS: The presence of comorbidities, medication usage and the multisymptomatic feature of OCD could have influenced our results to a certain degree. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest decreased grey matter volume and surface area in several key regions in patients with OCD. Parietal regions showed reductions in both volume and surface area, which underlines the potential relevance of these regions for the pathophysiology of the disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".