MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415191481 · doi:10.1038/s41380-025-03297-2

Cognitive arbitration between candidate dimensions of psychopathology

2025· article· en· W4415191481 on OpenAlexaff
Celine A Fox, Vanessa Teckentrup, Kelly Rose Donegan, Tricia X. F. Seow, Christopher Benwell, Brenden Tervo‐Clemmens, Claire M. Gillan

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeIrish Research CouncilScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsPsychopathologyCognitionSet (abstract data type)ArbitrationTask (project management)Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Mental healthLatent variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an alternative to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, transdiagnostic approaches that identify latent dimensions of psychopathology through factor analysis have gained prominence in recent years. A key critique of these approaches, however, is that they are performed at the level of symptoms only. This begs the question: are these dimensions truly more valid predictors of external outcomes than existing alternatives? Are there other ways, that are more data-driven, which can allow us to refine our definitions of clinical phenotypes? We tested this idea empirically, conducting a large-scale meta-scientific comparison of thousands of competing factor solutions that allowed us to determine if the latent structure underlying the covariation of psychiatric symptoms has robust and specific cognitive correlates. In nine independent datasets, comprising N = 7565 individuals including patients about to start mental health treatment, healthy individuals, paid and unpaid participants, a broad set of age ranges and cognitive task variants that measured model-based planning and metacognition, we found that factors with the best fit to cognition were those derived from a first-order factor analysis on the maximal number of theoretically informed self-report symptoms available. These factors ('Compulsivity and Intrusive Thought' and 'Anxious-depression') performed better than thousands of engineered alternatives and performed twice as well as traditional questionnaire total scores. Crucially, this unsupervised approached based on symptom correlation only performed on-par with a partial least squares analysis, a supervised approach to deriving factors based on cognition. These results provide evidence that unsupervised factor analysis of psychiatric symptoms is a viable method for rethinking how we define mental health and illness, affording clear opportunities for enhancing our understanding of specific underlying mechanistic processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.154
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.224
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1540.224
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.013
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207