Treatment of Monozygotic Twins with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Using Cognitive Therapy and Exposure with Ritual Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment and treatment of cohabiting monozygotic (MZ) twins with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a possible challenge for clinical psychologists. AIMS: This study aims to present a detailed history of two sets of cohabiting MZ twins with OCD, and describe the adaption of cognitive behavior therapy in their treatments. METHOD: Two sets of cohabiting MZ twins completed a structured intake and the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale as well as measures of depression, anxiety, a measure of obsessive beliefs, and thought action fusion. One set received cognitive behavior therapy and exposure with ritual prevention (ERP) simultaneously and the other received ERP separately. Pre-, post-treatment and follow-up assessments occurred for both sets of twins. RESULTS: All four individuals showed notable decreases in OCD, and results were maintained for three of the four participants at follow-up points. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the developmental course of OCD that can occur in cohabiting twins, and the clinical adaption that may be necessary.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".