Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder and Suicidal Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) and suicidal behavior. METHOD: Subjects referred for a psychiatric consultation were evaluated with structured interviews for mood and personality disorders (the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Axis II Disorders), a history of suicidal behavior, and levels of coping. A total of 311 subjects were investigated using a 3-group design to test the association between OCPD and suicidal behavior, controlling for the presence of depression. Subjects with OCPD and a history of depression were compared to depressed subjects without any Axis II diagnosis and to subjects without depression or personality disorders. The study was conducted at Verdun Community Psychiatric Clinic, Douglas Hospital, McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and subjects were recruited from 2003 until 2005. RESULTS: Subjects in the comorbid OCPD-depression group presented increased current and lifetime suicide ideation compared to the groups with depression alone or without depression or personality disorders (P = .004); they also had increased history of suicide attempts (P = .04), which were often multiple attempts (P = .01). They also scored lower on the Reasons for Living Inventory (RFL) and the Death Anxiety Questionnaire. Interestingly, comorbid OCPD-depression patients differed from patients with depression alone on the Moral Objections items of the RFL, on which individuals with OCPD-depression scored lowest. Limitations of this study were its cross-sectional design, retrospective sample, and limited generalizability to the population at large. CONCLUSIONS: Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is a factor increasing risk for nonfatal suicidal behavior independently of risk conferred by depressive 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".