Cognitive Bias to Symptom and Obsessive Belief Threat Cues in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the extent to which patients with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) demonstrate cognitive biases to OCD symptom or inflated responsibility threat cues. Participants with either primary contamination-washing or doubting/harming-checking OCD, non-OCD anxiety disorders, and student controls completed a primed lexical decision task. Following either neutral or OCD-threat priming conditions, participants made lexical decisions regarding different sets of word stimuli: nonwords, OCD symptoms, OCD inflated responsibility, and depression. Following the OCD primes, the primary contamination-washing symptom subgroup showed increased interference on OCD symptom words compared with the harming symptom and student groups. The primary contamination-washing subgroup also showed increased interference on responsibility words compared with the harming, non-OCD anxious and student groups. However, subsidiary analyses comparing patients with contamination obsessions with and without associated fears of harming others through the spreading of contaminants, demonstrated that it was the latter group that evidenced cognitive biases to responsibility threat cues. These results are considered in relation to cognitive models of 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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".