MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989886555 · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13153

Neurocognitive risk markers in pediatric obsessive–compulsive disorder

2019· article· en· W2989886555 on OpenAlexafffund
Juliana Negreiros, Laura Belschner, John R. Best, Sarah Lin, Diana Franco Yamin, Yayuk Joffres, Robert R. Selles, Fern Jaspers‐Fayer, Lynn D. Miller, Todd S. Woodward, William G. Honer, S. Evelyn Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsNeurocognitiveAnxietyPsychologyClinical psychologyCognitionCognitive flexibilityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has complex genetic underpinnings, particularly in its early-onset form, which places siblings at a 10-fold increased risk of developing the disorder. Examination for neurocognitive markers preceding pediatric OCD onset has not been conducted, although markers have been identified in adult OCD. This study compared neurocognition across groups of OCD-affected youth (n = 87), unaffected siblings of those with early-onset OCD (n = 67), and healthy controls (HC; n = 79). METHODS: A total of 233 participants aged 6-18 years old completed standardized neurocognitive tests of cognitive flexibility, decision making, planning, response inhibition, spatial working memory, attention, recognition nonverbal memory, and intelligence. They were administered the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule-Parent version (ADIS-P) and completed self-report anxiety and OCD questionnaires. Linear mixed-effects models tested for differences between groups, adjusting for age, gender, IQ, state anxiety, and ethnicity, and accounting for random effects of family membership. RESULTS: OCD-affected youth and unaffected siblings performed significantly worse on planning in comparison to HCs (Cohen's d = 0.74; 95% CI = [0.11, 1.36]; Cohen's d = 0.75; 95% CI = [0.12, 1.38], respectively; omnibus group effect p = .007). No other significant between-group differences were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Neurocognitive performance differences between groups identified planning as a preexisting trait marker of pediatric OCD, while no other domain presented as a marker of pediatric OCD. This differs from adult OCD, which is associated with broader cognitive impairments. Investigating longitudinal trajectories and predictive significance of neurocognition in those affected by, and at risk for, early-onset OCD is warranted. Ideally, this will enhance individualized risk stratification and inform future prevention and early intervention strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207