On the Pharmacotherapy of Obsessive—Compulsive Disorder: Is a Consensus Possible?
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".