Using electronically delivered therapy and brain imaging to understand OCD pathology: A pilot feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating mental health disorder with current psychotherapeutic treatments, while somewhat effective, yielding low accessibility and scalability. A lack of knowledge regarding the neural pathology of OCD may be hindering the development of innovative treatments. Previous research has observed baseline brain activation patterns in OCD patients, elucidating some understanding of the implications. However, by using neuroimaging to observe the effects of treatment on brain activation, a more complete picture of OCD can be drawn. Currently, the gold standard treatment is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, CBT is often inaccessible, time-consuming, and costly. Fortunately, it can be effectively delivered electronically (e-CBT). Objectives: This pilot study implemented an e-CBT program for OCD and observed its effects on cortical activation levels during a symptom provocation task. It was hypothesized that abnormal activations could be attenuated following treatment. Methods: OCD patients completed a 16-week e-CBT program administered through an online platform, mirroring in-person content. Treatment efficacy was evaluated using behavioral questionnaires and neuroimaging. Activation levels were assessed at the resting state and during the symptom provocation task. Results: = 0.07) improvement was observed in the quality of life. Participants had mostly positive qualitative feedback, citing accessibility benefits, comprehensive formatting, and relatable content. No significant changes in cortical activation were observed between baseline and post-treatment. Conclusion: This project sheds light on the application of e-CBT as a tool to evaluate the effects of treatment on cortical activation, setting the stage for a larger-scale study. The program showed great promise in feasibility and effectiveness. While there were no significant findings regarding changes in cortical activation, the trends were in agreeance with previous literature, suggesting future work could provide insight into whether e-CBT offers comparable cortical effects to in-person psychotherapy. Applying a greater knowledge of the neural mechanisms of action in OCD can help develop novel treatment plans in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".