Post-treatment effects of exposure therapy and clomipramine in obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine whether adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who respond to intensive exposure and response (ritual) prevention (EX/RP) with or without clomipramine (CMI) fare better 12 weeks after treatment discontinuation than responders receiving CMI alone. After receiving 12 weeks of treatment (EX/RP, CMI, EX/RP+CMI, or pill placebo [PBO] in a randomized clinical trial conducted at three outpatient research centers), 46 adults with OCD who responded to treatment (18 EX/RP, 11 CMI, 15 EX/RP+CMI, 2 PBO) were followed after treatment discontinuation for 12 weeks. Patients were assessed every 4 weeks with the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, the National Institutes of Health Global Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions scale by an evaluator who was blind to original treatment assignment. The primary hypothesis was that EX/RP and EX/RP+CMI responders would be less likely to relapse 12 weeks after treatment discontinuation than responders to CMI alone. Twelve weeks after treatment discontinuation, EX/RP and EX/RP+CMI responders, compared to CMI responders, had a significantly lower relapse rate (4/33 = 12% versus 5/11 = 45%) and a significantly longer time to relapse. The CMI relapse rate was lower than previously reported. Nonetheless, responders receiving intensive EX/RP with or without CMI fared significantly better 12 weeks after treatment discontinuation than responders receiving CMI alone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".