Alexithymia in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder – Results from a Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested an association between alexithymia and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, it is unclear to which extent alexithymic traits in OCD patients reflect familial deficits in cognitively processing and communicating feelings that are also present in their first-degree relatives. This study investigates the hypotheses of an elevated level of alexithymia in subjects with OCD and their first-degree relatives compared to controls and their first-degree relatives. METHODS: 82 cases with OCD and 169 first-degree relatives were compared to 76 controls and 144 first-degree relatives from a German family study on OCD (GENOS). All subjects completed the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Direct or family informant interviews were carried out with the German version of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia - lifetime version for anxiety disorders (DSM-IV). RESULTS: OCD was associated with significantly higher scores of alexithymia. However, first-degree relatives of OCD cases and of controls did not differ in TAS-20 scores. In linear regression analyses, the TAS-20 total score showed significant intrafamilial associations within the families of control subjects but not within families of OCD cases. CONCLUSION: OCD is a severe mental disorder that is associated independently from other current comorbid axis I disorders with deficits in identifying and expressing feelings. However, alexithymia does not represent a familial risk factor for OCD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".