Neurocircuit dynamics of arbitration between decision-making strategies across obsessive-compulsive and related disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessions and compulsions are central components of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) and obsessive–compulsive related disorders such as body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). Compulsive behaviours may result from an imbalance of habitual and goal-directed decision-making strategies. The relationship between these symptoms and the neural circuitry underlying habitual and goal-directed decision-making, and the arbitration between these strategies, remains unknown. This study examined resting state effective connectivity between nodes of these systems in two cohorts with obsessions and compulsions, each compared with their own corresponding healthy controls: OCD (nOCD = 43; nhealthy = 24) and BDD (nBDD = 21; nhealthy = 16). In individuals with OCD, the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, a node of the arbitration system, exhibited more inhibitory causal influence over the left posterolateral putamen, a node of the habitual system, compared with controls. Inhibitory causal influence in this connection showed a trend for a similar pattern in individuals with BDD compared with controls. Those with stronger negative connectivity had lower obsession and compulsion severity in both those with OCD and those with BDD. These relationships were not evident within the habitual or goal-directed circuits, nor were they associated with depressive or anxious symptomatology. These results suggest that abnormalities in the arbitration system may represent a shared neural phenotype across these two related disorders that is specific to obsessive–compulsive symptoms. In addition to nosological implications, these results identify potential targets for novel, circuit-specific treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".