Pharmacological treatment strategies in obsessive compulsive disorder: A cross-sectional view in nine international OCD centers
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: It is unknown what next-step strategies are being used in clinical practice for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who do not respond to first-line treatment. As part of a cross-sectional study of OCD, treatment and symptom information was collected. METHOD: Consecutive OCD out-patients in nine international centers were evaluated by self-report measures and clinical/structured interviews. OCD symptom severity was evaluated by the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S). Clinical response to current treatment was evaluated by the CGI-Improvement Scale (CGI-I ≤ 2). RESULTS: In total, 361 participants reported taking medication; 77.6% were taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; 50% reported use of at least one augmentation strategy. Antipsychotics were most often prescribed as augmenters (30.3%), followed by benzodiazepines (24.9%) and antidepressants (21.9%). No differences in OCD symptom severity were found between patients taking different classes of augmentation agents. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this international cross-sectional study indicate that current OCD treatment is in line with evidence-based treatment guidelines. Although augmentation strategies are widely used, no significant differences in OCD symptom severity were found between monotherapy and augmentation or between different therapeutic agents.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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