Fig. 4: Variation in the selection of clinical symptoms.

CIT Compulsivity and Intrusive Thought, A-D Anxious-depression, r Pearson correlation coefficient, p p-value. Model-based planning. A Density plot of effect sizes from 7665 candidate dimensions derived from all combinations of 9 questionnaires, retaining 1–5 factor solutions, predicting model-based planning. CIT was the 9^th best performing of 7665. B Final scores for the top factor and CIT correlated at r = 0.85, p < 0.001 within the discovery dataset (N = 1413). C Weighted average effect sizes across datasets (bars) and individual dataset effect sizes (dots) for the top factor and CIT associations with model-based planning. Overall effect sizes gains for the top factor over CIT were negligible and inconsistent across datasets. Overconfidence. D Density plot of effect sizes predicting overconfidence. CIT was the 23^rd best performing of 7665. E Final scores between the top factor and CIT were correlated at r = .62, p < 0.001 in the discovery dataset. F Weighted average effect sizes across datasets (bars) and individual dataset effect sizes (dots) for the top factor and CIT associations with overconfidence. Overall effect sizes gains of the top factor over CIT were once again negligible and inconsistent across datasets. Underconfidence. G Density plot of effect sizes predicting underconfidence. A-D was the 731^st best performing of 7665. H Final scores for the top factor and A-D were correlated at r = 0.95, p < 0.001 in the discovery dataset. I Weighted average effect sizes (bars) and individual dataset effect size (dots) for the top factor and A-D associations with underconfidence. Overall effect sizes differences between the factors were negligible, and the top factor did not consistently outperform A-D.