Comorbidity of obsessive‐compulsive disorder in recovered inpatients with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in inpatient subjects with bipolar disorder (BD) and to examine the clinical characteristics of BD subjects with OCD. METHOD: The sample consisted of 143 inpatient subjects with DSM-III-R BD-I and BD-NOS (BD-II), recovered from a current episode of either depression or mania. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained on the day of admission. Current comorbid conditions including OCD were determined by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Ifollowing recovery from the acute affective episode. RESULTS: The frequency of current OCD was 7% (N = 10). All BD subjects with OCD were BD-II, were male, and had a diagnosis of current dysthymia. They had fewer episodes and a higher incidence of prior suicide attempts than bipolar subjects without OCD. None of the bipolar subjects with OCD fulfilled criteria for cyclothymia. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that BD-II, OCD, dysthymia, and suicidality cluster together in some subjects with BD. We discuss the clinical implications of our findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".