MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416331398 · doi:10.2196/80240

Nutritional Supplementation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Protocol for a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2025· article· en· W4416331398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pau Soldevila-Matías, Joan Vicent Sánchez‐Ortí, Patricia Correa‐Ghisays, Vicent Balanzá‐Martínez, Diego Macías Saint-Gerons, Inmaculada Fuentes-Durá, Rafael Tabarés‐Seisdedos

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Nutritional SupplementationRandomizationMEDLINEResearch designSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic mental health condition, and standard treatment often results in incomplete symptom relief. Growing evidence suggests that nutritional supplements, including vitamins, minerals, and amino acids, may serve as potential adjunctive treatments for OCD by influencing neurotransmitter regulation and inflammation. OBJECTIVE: Our systematic review aims to assess the comparative efficacy of nutritional supplements on relevant clinical outcomes in individuals with OCD. METHODS: A protocol was developed and registered for this systematic review. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of nutritional supplementation compared with standard treatments (pharmacological and psychological interventions) will be included. Primary outcomes are changes in cognitive performance, quality of life, and psychiatric symptoms. Secondary outcomes include the presence of comorbidities or multimorbidities (eg, metabolic syndrome). Systematic searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception onward. Two independent researchers will screen the citations and full-text studies. The risk of bias and study quality will be evaluated using validated tools, and association measures with 95% CIs will be calculated. Potential sources of heterogeneity will also be analyzed. RESULTS: The search commenced in January 2025. Between June and August 2025, studies were identified and the full texts reviewed. Data extraction is anticipated to be completed in September 2025. The final synthesis is scheduled for December 2025. CONCLUSIONS: We aim to address the gaps in the current treatment paradigm for OCD by evaluating the efficacy of nutritional supplementation as an adjunctive therapy. These findings may provide insights into the potential of these supplements to improve cognitive and psychiatric outcomes. This protocol establishes a foundation for the rigorous synthesis of available evidence, which may inform future clinical practices and support the integration of nutritional strategies in OCD management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/NZ5MU; https://osf.io/NZ5MU. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/80240.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.444 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207