Clinical correlates and genetic linkage of social and communication difficulties in families with obsessive–compulsive disorder: Results from the OCD Collaborative Genetics Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have autistic-like traits, including deficits in social and communication behaviors (pragmatics). The objective of this study was to determine if pragmatic impairment aggregates in OCD families and discriminates a clinically and genetically distinct subtype of OCD. We conducted clinical examinations on, and collected DNA samples from, 706 individuals with OCD in 221 multiply affected OCD families. Using the Pragmatic Rating Scale (PRS), we compared the prevalence of pragmatic impairment in OCD-affected relatives of probands with and without pragmatic impairment. We also compared clinical features of OCD-affected individuals in families having at least one, versus no, individual with pragmatic impairment, and assessed for linkage to OCD in the two groups of families. The odds of pragmatic impairment were substantially greater in OCD-affected relatives of probands with pragmatic impairment. Individuals in high-PRS families had greater odds of separation anxiety disorder and social phobia, and a greater number of schizotypal personality traits. In high-PRS families, there was suggestive linkage to OCD on chromosome 12 at marker D12S1064 and on chromosome X at marker DXS7132 whereas, in low-PRS families, there was suggestive linkage to chromosome 3 at marker D3S2398. Pragmatic impairment aggregates in OCD families. Separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, and schizotypal personality traits are part of a clinical spectrum associated with pragmatic impairment in these families. Specific regions of chromosomes 12 and X are linked to OCD in high-PRS families. Thus, pragmatic impairment may distinguish a clinically and genetically homogeneous subtype 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".