Artificial Intelligence in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of Review: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic and disabling condition, often leading to significant functional impairments. Despite its early onset, there is an average delay of 17 years from symptom onset to diagnosis and treatment, resulting in poorer outcomes. This systematic review aims to synthesize current findings on the application of AI in OCD, highlighting opportunities for early symptom detection, scalable therapy training, clinical decision support, novel therapeutics, computer vision-based approaches, and multimodal biomarker discovery. Recent Findings: While previous reviews focused on biomarker-based OCD detection and treatment using machine learning (ML), the findings of the current review add information about novel applications of deep learning technology, specifically generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and natural language processing (NLP). Among the included 13 articles, most studies (84.6%) utilized secondary data analyses, primarily through GenAI/NLP. Nearly 77% of these studies were published in the past two years, with high quality of evidence. The primary focus areas were enhancing treatment and management, and timely OCD detection (both 38.5%); followed by AI tool development for broader mental health applications. Summary: AI technologies offer transformative potential for improvements related to OCD if diagnosis occurs earlier after onset; thereby lessening the consequential economic burden. Prioritizing investment in ethically sound AI research could significantly improve OCD outcomes in mental health care. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40501-025-00359-8.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".