A pilot study examining the use of Goal Management Training in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Recent meta-analyses point towards cognitive impairments in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), particularly in such executive function subdomains as planning and organization. Scant attention has focused on cognitive remediation strategies that may reduce cognitive dysfunction, with a possible corresponding decrease in symptoms of OCD. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of a standardized cognitive remediation program, Goal Management Training (GMT), in a pilot sample of individuals with OCD. Method Nineteen individuals with a primary DSM-5 diagnosis of OCD were randomized to receive either the 9-week GMT program (active group; n = 10) or to complete a 9-week waiting period (waitlist control; n = 9). Groups were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up. The assessment comprised neuropsychological tasks assessing a variety of cognitive domains, and subjective measures of functioning and of symptom severity. Results The active condition showed significant improvements from baseline to post-treatment on measures of inattention, impulsivity, problem-solving, and organization compared to controls. Moreover, whereas the active group reported a significant improvement in subjective cognition over the course of treatment, no such improvement emerged in the waitlist group over this same period. Neither group showed improvement on indices of depressive, anxiety, or OCD-related symptom severity. Discussion The results of this small pilot investigation indicate that, although promising, this protocol requires several modifications to be best suited for this population. Replication of these findings is awaited, with current results potentially limited by sample characteristics including motivation to seek and complete treatment, and high attrition at 3-month follow-up (n = 6 completers). Trial Registration NCT02502604 . (December 7, 2018)
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".