Recollections of parent–child relationships in patients with obsessive‐compulsive disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In previous studies, patients with different psychiatric conditions, as compared with matched controls, have reported that their parents were more protective and less caring towards them when they were children. However, studies investigating associations between parental behaviours and anxiety disorders have yielded inconsistent results. The aim of this study was to compare recalled parental behaviours in out-patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), in out-patients with panic disorder with agoraphobia (PDA), and in non-anxious controls. METHOD: The sample included 43 out-patients with OCD, 38 with PDA, and 120 controls. Participants completed the Parental Bonding Instrument and the Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran or Own Memories of Parental Rearing Experiences in Childhood. RESULTS: No differences were found between the two anxious groups. However, compared with the control group, anxious patients recalled their parents as more protective. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that child rearing practices such as overprotection may be a risk factor in the development of anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".