Obsessive-compulsive disorder in the elderly: A report from the International College of Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a highly disabling condition, with frequent early onset. Adult/adolescent OCD has been extensively investigated, but little is known about prevalence and clinical characterization of geriatric patients with OCD (G-OCD≥65years). The present study aimed to assess prevalence of G-OCD and associated socio-demographic and clinical correlates in a large international sample. METHODS: Data from 416 outpatients, participating in the ICOCS network, were assessed and categorized into 2 groups, age<vs≥65years, and then divided on the basis of the median age of the sample (age<vs≥42years). Socio-demographic and clinical variables were compared between groups (Pearson Chi-squared and t tests). RESULTS: G-OCD compared with younger patients represented a significant minority of the sample (6% vs 94%, P<.001), showing a significantly later age at onset (29.4±15.1 vs 18.7±9.2years, P<.001), a more frequent adult onset (75% vs 41.1%, P<.001) and a less frequent use of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (20.8% vs 41.8%, P<.05). Female gender was more represented in G-OCD patients, though not at a statistically significant level (75% vs 56.4%, P=.07). When the whole sample was divided on the basis of the median age, previous results were confirmed for older patients, including a significantly higher presence of women (52.1% vs 63.1%, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: G-OCD compared with younger patients represented a small minority of the sample and showed later age at onset, more frequent adult onset and lower CBT use. Age at onset may influence course and overall management of OCD, with additional investigation needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".