Transdiagnostic cognitive biases in psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatric disorders are characterized by cognitive deficits, which have been proposed as a transdiagnostic feature of psychopathology (“C” factor). Similarly, cognitive biases (e.g., in attention, memory, and interpretation) represent common tendencies in information processing that are often associated with psychiatric symptoms. However, the question remains whether cognitive biases are also transdiagnostic or are specific to certain psychiatric disorders/symptoms. The current systematic review (osf.io/znf4q) sought to address whether the proposed “C” factor of transdiagnostic cognitive dysfunction in psychopathology can be extended to cognitive biases. Overall, 31 studies comprising 4401 participants (2536 patients, 1865 non-clinical controls) across 21 diagnostic categories met inclusion criteria, assessing 19 cognitive biases with most studies focusing on interpretation (k = 22) and attention (k = 11) biases, with only 2 assessing memory biases. Traditional meta-analyses found a moderate effect size (g = 0.32) for more severe cognitive biases in all patients relative to non-clinical controls, as well as small but significant associations between interpretation biases and transdiagnostic symptom categories (general psychopathology: r = .20, emotion dysfunction: r = 0.17, psychotic symptoms: r = 0.25). Network meta-analyses revealed significant patient versus control differences on attention and interpretation biases across diagnoses, as well as significant differences between diagnoses, with highest severity in panic disorder for attention biases and obsessive-compulsive disorder for interpretation biases. The current findings support a big “C” interpretation of transdiagnostic cognitive dysfunction in psychiatric disorders, extending the concept to cognitive biases and transdiagnostic symptom dimensions. They also suggest that while the presence of cognitive biases is transdiagnostic, bias severity differs across diagnoses, as in traditional neurocognitive deficits.
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 | 0.017 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".