Obsessional beliefs, compulsive behaviours and symptom severity: their evolution and interrelation over stages of treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study reports a case series examining (1) the variation in strength of obsessional doubt and belief in consequences of the doubt; and (2) the interaction between these cognitive components and symptom measures of duration and severity of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), over 24 weeks of cognitive behaviour therapy. Eight participants diagnosed with OCD, four with contamination-related rituals and four with checking behaviours, were selected on the basis of the Yale-Brown obsessive-compulsive scale (Y-BOCS) and Padua ratings. All participants completed daily diaries measuring strength of principal obsessional doubt (0-100), strength of belief in consequences of the doubt (0-100) and the duration of the compulsive rituals throughout the 24 weeks of therapy. Severity of symptomatology was measured pre- and post-treatment using the Y-BOCS. Change in all measures was analysed over time following the procedure outlined by Storchheim and O'Mahoney (2006). Results showed that decrease in belief in secondary consequences is always accompanied by a decrease in strength of obsessions, but the converse does not hold. Furthermore, change in OCD symptomatology may precede cognitive changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".