Cited by 40Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Are candidate neurocognitive endophenotypes of OCD present in paediatric patients? A systematic review

Marzuki, Aleya A., Pereira de Souza, Ana Maria Frota Lisboa, Sahakian, Barbara J., Robbins, Trevor W.·2020·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

To-date it has been difficult to ascertain the exact cognitive profile of childhood OCD as studies report variable results. Adult OCD research lately utilises the endophenotype approach; studying cognitive traits that are present in both patients and their unaffected first-degree relatives, and are thought to lie closer to the genotype than the full-blown disorder. By observing whether candidate endopenotypes of adult OCD are present in child patients, we can determine whether the two subtypes show cognitive overlap. We conducted a systematic review of the paediatric OCD literature focussing on proposed neurocognitive endophenotypes of OCD: cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, memory, planning, decision-making, action monitoring, and reversal learning. We found that paediatric patients present robust increases in brain error related negativity associated with abnormal action monitoring, impaired decision-making under uncertainty, planning, and visual working memory, but there is less evidence for deficits in other cognitive domains. This implies that children with OCD show some cognitive similarities with adult patients, but other dysfunctions may only manifest later in the disorder trajectory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.010

Cites

201 of 201 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marzuki, A. A., Pereira de Souza, A. M. F. L., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Marzuki, Aleya A.
  • Sahakian, Barbara J.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
108
Pages
617-645
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2995683224
Cited by
39
References
200
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cambridge Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
  • NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
  • Wallitt Foundation and Eton College
  • Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder, neurocognitive endophenotypes, cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, visual working memory, planning, decision making under uncertainty, action monitoring, reversal learning, error-related negativity, cognitive profile
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Humans, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Endophenotypes, Cognitive Dysfunction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review