SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
A systematic review of EEG-based machine learning classifications for obsessive-compulsive disorder: current status and future directions.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic and disabling condition affecting approximately 3.5% of the global population, with diagnosis on average delayed by 7.1 years or often confounded with other psychiatric disorders. Advances in electroencephalography (EEG) analysis using machine learning hold promise for the development of OCD-specific biological markers. This systematic review aims to evaluate studies that classify individuals with OCD from other groups based on EEG data. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and IEEE databases through February 2025; of 42 screened studies, 11 met inclusion criteria for final analysis. Data were extracted across four domains: general information, population characteristics, EEG features, and machine learning features. Results revealed extensive heterogeneity in study populations, associated symptoms, EEG preprocessing methods, validation strategies, and reporting of model accuracy, underscoring the need for harmonized standards. Notably, only a few studies provided statistical interpretation of their models. None of reviewed studies employed modern interpretability techniques such as SHAP or LIME methods that, beyond reducing "black-box" opacity, can inform optimal electrode placement for neurofeedback or transcranial electrical stimulation. Many studies were constrained by cultural limitations, small sample sizes and lack of demographic information e.g., age, gender, medication. This work represents the first systematic review of EEG-ML classification studies in OCD and emphasizes the urgent need for methodological standardization in this emerging field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.