MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042996497

Quantifying dimensional severity of obsessive-compulsive disorder for neurobiological research

2017· article· pt· W7042996497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2017
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Rating scaleLogistic regressionMultinomial logistic regressionIdentification (biology)HomogeneousScale (ratio)Vulnerability (computing)Data set
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current research to explore genetic susceptibility factors in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has resulted in the tentative identification of a small number of genes. However, findings have not been readily replicated. It is now broadly accepted that a major limitation to this work is the heterogeneous nature of this disorder, and that an approach incorporating OCD symptom dimensions in a quantitative manner may be more successful in identifying both common as well as dimension-specific vulnerability genetic factors. As most existing genetic datasets did not collect specific dimensional severity ratings, a specific method to reliably extract dimensional ratings from the most widely used severity rating scale, the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), for OCD is needed. This project aims to develop and validate a novel algorithm to extrapolate specific dimensional symptom severity ratings in OCD from the existing YBOCS for use in genetics and other neurobiological research. To accomplish this goal, we used a large data set comprising adult subjects from three independent sites: the Brazilian OCD Consortium, the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Canada and the Hospital of Bellvitge, in Barcelona, Spain. A multinomial logistic regression was proposed to model and predict the quantitative phenotype [i.e., the severity of each of the five homogeneous symptom dimensions of the Dimensional YBOCS (DYBOCS)] in subjects who have only YBOCS (categorical) data. YBOCS and DYBOCS data obtained from 1183 subjects were used to build the model, which was tested with the leave-one-out cross-validation method. The model's goodness of fit, accepting a deviation of up to three points in the predicted DYBOCS score, varied from 78% (symmetry/order) to 84% (cleaning/contamination and hoarding dimensions). These results suggest that this algorithm may be a valuable tool for extracting dimensional phenotypic data for neurobiological studies 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207