Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders: A Review of the Evidence-Based Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of the evidence-based treatments for obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders (OCSD), a group of conditions related to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) by phenomenological and etiological similarities, the morbidity of which is increasingly recognized. METHOD: Literature relating to the following disorders: body dysmorphic disorder, hypochondriasis, trichotillomania, onychophagia, psychogenic excoriation, compulsive buying, kleptomania, and pathological gambling, and published between January 1965 and October 2007, was found using PubMed. Included in this review were 107 treatment reports. RESULTS: Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) have shown benefits as first-line, short-term treatments for body dysmorphic disorder, hypochondriasis, onychophagia, and psychogenic excoriation, with some benefits in trichotillomania, pathological gambling, and compulsive buying. There are also suggested benefits for several atypical antipsychotics in disorders with a high degree of impulsivity, including trichotillomania and pathological gambling, and to a lesser extent, kleptomania and psychogenic excoriation. Cognitive-behavioural interventions have generally shown evidence for use as first-line treatment across the spectrum, with some variability in degree of benefit. CONCLUSIONS: As in OCD, several conditions in the proposed OCSD benefit from SRIs and (or) cognitive-behavioural interventions. However, the treatment literature is generally limited, and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to evaluate individual and combination treatments, for short-term use and as maintenance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".