Investigating executive functions in youth with OCD and hoarding symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive functions (EF) deficits are hypothesized to be a core contributor to hoarding symptoms. EF have been studied in adult hoarding populations, but studies in youth are lacking. The current study compared multiple EF subdomains between youth with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and youth with OCD and hoarding symptoms. Forty youth (8-18 years old) with a primary diagnosis of OCD were recruited. Participants were divided by hoarding severity on the Child Saving Inventory (CSI) into either the "hoarding group" (upper 33.3%) or the "low-hoarding group" (lower 66.7%). Groups were compared on EF tasks of cognitive flexibility, decision-making, and inhibitory control. Youth in the hoarding group exhibited significantly higher cognitive flexibility and lowered perseveration than the low-hoarding group. Hoarding and low-hoarding groups did not differ in any other EF subdomain. Hoarding symptoms in youth with OCD were not associated with deficits in EF subdomains; instead, youth who hoard exhibited higher cognitive flexibility compared to youth with low hoarding symptoms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".