MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114553286 · doi:10.1177/070674370605100701

The Pharmacologic and Psychological Treatment of Obsessive—Compulsive Disorder

2006· letter· en· W2114553286 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gilbert Pinard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyClomipramineAnxiety disorderPanic disorderCognitive therapyRandomized controlled trialCognitionExposure and response preventionDepression (economics)PsychologyPsychiatryBehaviour therapyMedicineClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) continues to present a particular challenge to clinicians. As opposed to other anxiety disorders and, to some degree, to depression, the results of therapies, be they pharmacologie or psychological, are at best less than optimal. Indeed, when one reads articles reporting randomized controlled trials, patients are said to be responders when a 35% reduction of symptoms occurs (as if reducing rituals from 6 to 4 hours were clinically meaningful). Moreover, when one takes into account those who drop out of studies because of medication side effects or because of fear in the exposure-response prevention (ERP) studies-often in the 25% to 30% range-and add to those numbers the nonresponders, then we are looking at a 35% to 50% response in about 50% of patients. Additionally, few patients attain full remission-hardly satisfactory outcomes! The one redeeming finding is that most gains achieved by cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) seem to be stable. The longest study to date spans 7 years but has few subjects (1). In it, the 41% improvement was maintained (45% at follow-up). Hence the continued effort to develop new strategies. Foa reports an intensive regimen of daily, prolonged exposure sessions (over 2 hours) for 3 weeks (2). The dropout rate was extremely high in the New York site (over 40%), as opposed to the Philadelphia site, which may indicate that in Foa's clinic the cognitive preparation for treatment reduced apprehension and induced better compliance. Dr Foa's comparator to ERP was clomipramine, which we know has a high side effect profile that may explain patient resistance. The ERP therapy was superior to clomipramine alone, and the combination of behaviour therapy and medication did not, in that study, improve outcome. Foa feels that ERP was so powerful that there was little room for the medication to show added improvement. However, in children and adolescents, the combination of CBT and sertraline has been shown to be superior to either treatment alone (3). Another strategy has been to add the components sequentially. For example, Kampman added 12 sessions of CBT to continued treatment with fluoxetine in nonresponders (defined as those showing less than 25% improvement after 12 weeks of medication) (4). There was a 41% improvement rate in these resistant patients. A recent review and 2 case illustrations have outlined in which patients the combinatory approaches may be best indicated (5). In his review in this issue, Abramowitz summarizes the comparative results of CBT and ERP and shows that the indispensable component of the psychological approaches seems to be exposure, even in the soi-disant pure cognitive group (individuals often expose in imagination and indeed, at times, spontaneously in vivo without therapist intervention). Abramowitz also mentions that cognitive therapists have developed strategies that look more deeply into the schemas of patients-a core belief of enhanced responsibility for the patient's own and others' well-being (6), an increased sense of vulnerability (7), and thought-action fusion (IfI think it, it means I want to do it) (8). Integrating ERP, traditional CBT, and schema-focused cognitive therapy has been proposed as a strategy to enhance response in treatment-resistant patients (9). Subtypes identified according to symptoms (such as checking, washing, or symmetry) may also explain some of the differential responses encountered in treatment (10) Augmenting regimens have also been proposed in pharmacology: in Blier's review, he states that the most promising approach seems to employ the atypical antipsychotics. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207