Psychological Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Patients with Major Depression: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in patients with comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Participants (n = 29) diagnosed with comorbid OCD and MDD were randomized to receive standard CBT for OCD or integrated CBT that included an exclusive focus on treating MDD in the first phase of treatment and OCD in the second phase of treatment. RESULTS: Both treatments resulted in statistically significant improvements in OCD and MDD symptoms. Treatment effects and recovery rates in the intent-to-treat sample were lower in both treatments, compared with past studies that excluded patients with MDD. However, among treatment completers, both treatments resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in OCD and MDD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: CBT holds promise as an efficacious treatment for people with comorbid OCD and MDD. The high treatment dropout rate with comorbid patients suggests that additional treatment strategies are required to enhance retention and optimize clinical outcomes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it