Changes of motor cortical excitability and response inhibition in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Deficits in cortical inhibitory processes have been suggested as underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). We examined whether patients with OCD have altered cortical excitability using paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). We also tested associations between TMS indices and OCD-related characteristics, including age of onset and response inhibition in the go/no-go paradigm, to examine whether altered cortical excitability contributes to symptom formation and behavioural inhibition deficit in patients with OCD. Methods: We assessed motor cortex excitability using paired-pulse TMS in 51 patients with OCD and 39 age-matched healthy controls. We also assessed clinical symptoms and response inhibition in the go/nogo task. All patients were undergoing treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors. We performed repeated-measures multivariate analysis of covariance to compare TMS indices between patients with OCD and controls. Results: Compared to controls, patients with OCD showed a shorter cortical silent period and decreased intracortical facilitation. However, we found no significant difference between groups for resting motor threshold or short-interval intracortical inhibition. In the OCD group, the shortened cortical silent period was associated with a prompt reaction time in the go/no-go task and with early onset of OCD. Limitations: We could not exclude the influence of medications on motor cortex excitability. Conclusion: These findings suggest abnormal cortical excitability in patients with OCD. The associations between cortical silent period and response inhibition and age of onset further indicate that altered cortical excitability may play an important role in the development of OCD.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".