Neurocognitive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used with increasing frequency as a therapeutic tool to alleviate clinical symptoms of obsessive compulsive-disorder (OCD). However, little is known about the effects of tDCS on neurocognitive functioning among OCD patients. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature examining the effects of tDCS on specific neurocognitive functions in OCD. A literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science. The search yielded 4 results: one randomized, sham-controlled study (20 patients), one randomized, controlled, partial crossover trial (12 patients), one open-label study (5 patients), and one randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group trial (37 patients). A total of 51 patients received active tDCS with some diversity in electrode montages targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the pre-supplementary motor area, or the orbitofrontal cortex. tDCS was associated with improved decision-making in study 1, enhanced attentional monitoring and response inhibition in study 2, improved executive and inhibitory control in study 3, and reduced attentional bias and improved response inhibition and working memory in study 4. Limitations of this review include its small sample, the absence of a sham group in half of the studies, and the heterogeneity in tDCS parameters. These preliminary results highlight the need for future testing in randomized, sham-controlled trials to examine whether and how tDCS induces relevant cognitive benefits in OCD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".