A Family Study of Juvenile Obsessive—Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether juvenile obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is familial and whether the rate of Tourette syndrome (TS) and tic disorders is higher among relatives of patients with OCD than among relatives of controls subjects. METHOD: We assessed first-degree relatives of 35 juvenile OCD probands (aged 16 years or less) and 34 matched, psychiatrically unaffected control subjects, using the Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents-Revised (DICA-R) (unpublished), a Questionnaire for tic disorders, the Children's Version of Leyton's Obsessional Inventory (CV-LOI), and the Children's Version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). Similarly, we assessed adult relatives, using the Schedule for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN), Leyton's Obsessional Inventory (LOI), the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), and a Questionnaire for tic disorders. The diagnoses were determined by consensus, using DSM-III-R criteria. We calculated age-corrected morbid risk, using Weinberg's method. RESULTS: The morbid risk for OCD among the relatives of OCD probands was 4.96%, while none of the relatives of unaffected control subjects had OCD. We did not diagnose TS in any of the relatives of either OCD probands or control subjects. We diagnosed chronic motor tic disorders in only 1 of the relatives of OCD probands, while none of the relatives of control subjects had any tic disorder. CONCLUSION: Most juvenile cases of OCD are nonfamilial and unrelated to tic disorders, while only a few are familial. There is a need to re-examine the issue of familiality in cases of OCD, as well as its relation to TS, using larger community samples to better understand the hypotheses of familial transmission and comorbidity with tic disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".