Neural bases of the clinical and neurocognitive differences between early- and late-onset obsessive–compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Using biological evidence to define subtypes within the heterogeneous population with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is important for improving treatment response. Based on age at onset, OCD can be clustered into 2 groups, each of which is more homogeneous with respect to clinical and cognitive phenotype. However, the neural bases for these phenotypic differences need to be established to construct evidence-based homogeneous groups. Methods: We compared brain volumes, clinical symptoms, and neurocognitive function for 49 people with early-onset OCD and 52 with late-onset OCD (participants in both groups were unmedicated or drug-naïve), and 103 healthy controls. We performed regression analyses to examine group × volume interaction effects on clinical outcomes or neurocognitive function in people with OCD. Results: We observed larger volumes in the precentral, orbitofrontal, middle frontal, and middle temporal gyri in people with early-onset OCD compared to those with late-onset OCD. Poorer visuospatial construction in early-onset OCD was correlated with a larger left middle frontal gyrus volume. Impaired visuospatial memory in people with early-onset OCD and cognitive inflexibility in people with late-onset OCD were correlated with increased and decreased volume in the left middle frontal gyrus, respectively. We found group × volume interactions for obsessive–compulsive symptom scores in the left middle temporal gyrus of people with OCD. Limitations: Although we divided the subtypes using the commonly adopted criterion of age at onset, this criterion is still somewhat controversial. Conclusion: We provided the neural bases for clinical and neurocognitive differences to demonstrate that biological evidence underlies the distinctions between early- and late-onset OCD. This study suggests that different treatment options should be considered for the OCD subtypes, because their neurobiology differs and is related to distinct phenotypic profiles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".