On the Pharmacotherapy of Obsessive—Compulsive Disorder: Is a Consensus Possible?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and tolerability of clomipramine compared with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), bearing in mind the recent Expert Consensus Guidelines recommendation to use clomipramine after 2 to 3 failed SSRI trials. METHOD: The literature on the pharmacotherapy of OCD was critically examined. RESULTS: The available research evidence is not conclusive but suggests that clomipramine possesses greater anti-obsessional efficacy than do the SSRIs. In addition, when clomipramine is presented to patients in a positive way, and properly used in small initial doses with gradual increases, it seems to be tolerated as well as the SSRIs. CONCLUSION: Recently expressed opinions that clomipramine should be used to treat OCD after 2 to 3 failed SSRI trials are not supported by research evidence. Both clomipramine and the SSRIs may be used as first-line treatments for OCD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 it