Neuropsychological performance across symptom dimensions of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a comment on the state and critical review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a heterogeneous disorder, with multiple symptom presentations. Delineating the neuropsychological characteristics associated with previously identified symptom clusters may therefore be useful in assisting to better define symptom subtypes of OCD.Areas covered: This review summarizes the existing literature on the assessment of neuropsychological performance in symptom-based dimensions of OCD. Results of 23 studies are described and the methodological issues and challenges present in this body of literature are discussed.Expert opinion: The current state of the literature precludes a meaningful meta-analysis of cognitive dysfunction across the breadth of symptom dimensions of OCD. This is due primarily to significant methodological differences observed between studies, both in terms of neuropsychological measures and symptom subtyping methods employed, and any resulting meta-analytic results would be biased by varying quality of evidence. Future studies addressing these limitations should include more consistent neuropsychology measures and methods of classifying OCD symptoms with the aim of reproducing the results of previous research to identify more concrete patterns of neuropsychological performance across dimensions; best practices and alternative approaches are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".