MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285464579 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14665695.v1

Reassurance-seeking behaviour, intolerance of uncertainty, and neurocognitive functioning in obsessive-compulsive disorder

2021· preprint· en· W4285464579 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Orr

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)St. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitivePsychologyClinical psychologyPsychological interventionCognitionObsessive compulsivePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a psychological condition involving excessive reassurance-seeking (ERS), or repeated questioning of others about something perceived as threatening; low cognitive confidence; and intolerance of uncertainty (IU; Cougle et al., 2012; Nedeljkovic et al., 2009; Parrish, 2009). Relationships between these symptoms and several domains of cognitive functioning were examined in the present study. Thirty-five OCD patients and 34 healthy controls completed a battery of psychological questionnaires and neurocognitive measures. Results indicated that OCD patients reported greater levels of ERS than healthy controls in three different situations. Furthermore, significant relationships were identified between: (1) decision-related ERS and decision-making impairment, (2) cognitive confidence and decision-related ERS, and (3) a particular form of IU, inhibitory IU, and decision-making impairment. These findings are important, as these psychological symptoms are associated with negative outcomes. The relationships identified provide an important foundation for future research and the development of targeted interventions for these 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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207