MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956827646 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026261

Perceived physical health in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2956827646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Pozza, Fabio Ferretti, Anna Coluccia

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMedicineSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryMEDLINEScopusMeta-analysisPopulationProtocol (science)Mental healthQuality of life (healthcare)PsychiatryGerontologyClinical psychologyAlternative medicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.033
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207