Perceived physical health in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental health condition associated with severe impairment in a variety of quality of life domains, an increased physical health burden, and a higher risk of general medical conditions and mortality compared with the general population. While there is a large amount of literature on psychological quality of life, a systematic review of perceived physical health in OCD is lacking. A quantitative summary might suggest that policy makers also focus the evaluation on perceived physical health and develop new strategies also aimed at this outcome. The current paper presents a protocol for the first systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at summarising perceived physical health in OCD by specifically examining perceived physical health status, bodily pain and role limitations due to physical problems in patients with OCD compared with controls. The review will also investigate potential demographic and clinical moderators of perceived physical health status (age, gender, OCD severity, publication date, methodological quality). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies will be included if using a clinical group with a current primary diagnosis of OCD established by international standardised criteria, if measuring perceived physical health status, and if using screened or community participants as controls. No publication date or language restriction will be applied. An online systematic search of electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), and examination of conference proceedings and theses/dissertations will be conducted by independent reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The current review does not require ethics approval. The results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2018 CRD42018106194.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".