Alexithymia, responsibility attitudes and suicide ideation among outpatients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is psychiatric disorder with a significant suicide risk, and the presence of alexithymia may increase this risk. As several studies attribute an important role, in OCD, to responsibility, the aims of this study were to evaluate possible clinical differences between patients positive or not for alexithymia concerning disorder severity, responsibility attitudes and suicide ideation and investigate which variables were associated with increased suicide ideation. METHODS: 104 adult outpatients with OCD were recruited. Alexithymia was measured with Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), attitude about responsibility was tested with Responsibility Attitude Scale (RAS), suicide ideation was assessed with Scale of Suicide Ideation (SSI) and depressive symptoms were evaluated with Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Score of item #11 on the Y-BOCS was considered as a measure of insight. RESULTS: Patients positive for alexithymia showed higher responsibility attitudes and more severe suicide ideation. In a blockwise regression model, the presence of lower insight, higher RAS scores and difficulty in identifying feelings dimension of TAS-20 were associated with higher SSI scores. CONCLUSIONS: OCD patients with alexithymia may show higher disorder severity, lower insight and inflated responsibility, all related to suicide ideation, independently from depressive symptoms. Implications were discussed and study limitations considered and reported.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".