Are all safety behaviours created equal? A comparison of novel and routinely used safety behaviours in obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contamination fear is one of the most common symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Exposure and response prevention (ERP) is effective for OCD, but a significant minority of treatment-seeking individuals refuse ERP entirely or drop out prematurely. Research suggests that safety behaviour (SB) may enhance the acceptability of ERP; however, questions remain about how to incorporate SB into existing treatments. Clinical participants with OCD and contamination fear (N = 57) were randomized to receive an exposure session with no SB (ERP), a routinely used SB (RU), or a never-used SB (NU). Significant reductions in contamination fear severity were observed in all conditions. Although omnibus comparisons were only marginally significant, pairwise comparisons revealed some condition differences. NU demonstrated significantly lower self-reported contamination fear severity at post-exposure, as well as marginally higher treatment acceptability ratings. Findings suggest that exposure with SB may be effective and acceptable, and are discussed in terms of cognitive-behavioural theory and treatment of anxiety and related 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".