Neurocognitive and Dysfunctional Belief Candidate Endophenotypes of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The current dissertation examined neurocognitive and dysfunctional belief candidate endophenotypes (CEs) across the obsessive compulsive spectrum to elucidate general versus specific factors. This study included CEs from two etiological perspectives well established in the literature. Secondary analyses examined several CEs multidimensionally and examined the relationship between CEs and of QOL. Methods: A total of 77 participants took part in this study, divided into four groups; OCD (n = 21), Hoarding Disorder (HD; n = 16), Grooming Disorders which included both Trichotillomania and Excoriation Disorder (GD; n = 18), and control participants (n = 22). Participants completed a clinical interview and battery of neurocognitive tasks and questionnaires. Results: Those with HD performed worse than controls on measures of response inhibition and set-shifting. OCD continued to predict significant variance in number sequencing. Examination of dysfunctional belief CEs revealed specificity of Responsibility/Threat beliefs and Importance/Control of Thoughts beliefs to OCD. Perfectionism/Intolerance of Uncertainty appear to be broad CEs; however, differing specificity emerged depending on the measure utilized to measure the construct. Self-report indecision revealed specificity to OCD and HD. Differing patterns of QOL impairments emerged across the spectrum. A better understanding of CEs specificity has implications for diagnostic classification, etiology, course, and treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".