MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108314955 · doi:10.1101/2020.11.23.394841

Visuomotor Activation of Inhibition-Processing in Pediatric Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: A Magnetoencephalography Study

2020· preprint· en· W3108314955 on OpenAlexafffund
Eman Nishat, Colleen Dockstader, Anne L. Wheeler, Thomas Tan, John A. E. Anderson, Sandra Mendlowitz, Donald Mabbott, Paul Arnold, Stephanie H. Ameis

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health FoundationAutism Speaks
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographyOrbitofrontal cortexObsessive compulsivePsychologyNeural activityAudiologyNeural correlates of consciousnessBrain activity and meditationResponse inhibitionNeuroscienceClinical psychologyMedicineElectroencephalographyCognitionPrefrontal cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The ability to inhibit a response is a component of executive control that is impaired in many individuals with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and may contribute to clinical symptoms. This study explored whether neural processing during response inhibition, measured using magnetoencephalography (MEG), differed in a sample of medication-naïve youth with OCD, compared to typically developing controls (TDC). Methods Data was acquired from 20 medication-naïve children and youth with OCD (11.9 ± 2.1 SD years) and 14 TDC (12.3 ± 2.1 SD years). MEG was used to localize and characterize neural activity during a Go/No-Go task. Regional differences in amplitude of activity during a Go and No-Go condition between OCD versus TDC were examined. Results In response to the visual cue presented during the Go condition, participants with OCD showed significantly increased amplitude of activity in the primary motor (MI) cortex compared to TDC. A trend towards decreased amplitude of activity in the orbitofrontal cortex in OCD versus TDC was also found during stop errors in the No-Go condition. Conclusion Our preliminary study in a small medication-naïve sample suggests that neural response within motor and orbitofrontal regions may be altered during Go/No-Go Task performance, and that MEG as an imaging tool may be sensitive to detecting such differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207