Alexithymia in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder – Results from a Family Study
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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