A systematic review of neurocognition and social cognition in body dysmorphic disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neurocognitive underpinnings are implicated in the aetiology and maintenance of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD); however, inconsistent findings across a range of neurocognitive domains suggest that a comprehensive synthesis of the literature using a hierarchical framework of neurocognition is needed. METHODS: A final search across OVID Medline, PsycNET, Scopus and Web of Science databases was conducted on 20 June 2024 to identify research that examined performance on behavioural tasks of objective neurocognition in BDD. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Fifty-four studies aligned with the following inclusion criteria: (1) full-text; (2) peer-reviewed; (3) published in English; (4) employed a neurocognitive task with an objective outcome and (5) involved a case-controlled paradigm consisting of BDD and healthy control samples. Findings were synthesised according to neurocognitive sub-domains viewed as a hierarchy from basic to higher-level domains. RESULTS: Neurocognitive differences in BDD relative to controls were identified at almost all levels of the hierarchy, most consistently in the upper domains of executive function and social cognition. Vulnerabilities were also demonstrated in the sub-domains of visual perception of faces, Gestalt processing, selective attention to faces and verbal memory. Methodological limitations or the influence of neurocognitive sub-groups may contribute to inconsistencies across the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Although neurocognitive differences appear central to BDD, a picture of neurocognitive heterogeneity emerged with the salience of stimuli important and a likely bias to local-over-global processing demonstrated across the domains.
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.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it