Clinical outcomes of deep brain stimulation for obsessive‐compulsive disorder: Insight as a predictor of symptom changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a safe and effective treatment option for people with refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Yet our understanding of predictors of response and prognostic factors remains rudimentary, and long-term comprehensive follow-ups are lacking. We aim to investigate the efficacy of DBS therapy for OCD patients, and predictors of clinical response. METHODS: Eight OCD participants underwent DBS stimulation of the nucleus accumbens (NAc) in an open-label longitudinal trial, duration of follow-up varied between 9 months and 7 years. Post-operative care involved comprehensive fine tuning of stimulation parameters and adjunct multidisciplinary therapy. RESULTS: Six participants achieved clinical response (35% improvement in obsessions and compulsions on the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS)) within 6-9 weeks, response was maintained at last follow up. On average, the YBOCS improved by 45% at last follow up. Mixed linear modeling elucidated directionality of symptom changes: insight into symptoms strongly predicted (P = 0.008) changes in symptom severity during DBS therapy, likely driven by initial changes in depression and anxiety. Precise localization of DBS leads demonstrated that responders most often had their leads (and active contacts) placed dorsal compared to non-responders, relative to the Nac. CONCLUSION: The clinical efficacy of DBS for OCD is demonstrated, and mediators of changes in symptoms are proposed. The symptom improvements within this cohort should be seen within the context of the adjunct psychological and biopsychosocial care that implemented a shared decision-making approach, with flexible iterative DBS programming. Further research should explore the utility of insight as a clinical correlate of response. The trial was prospectively registered with the ANZCTR (ACTRN12612001142820).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".