General personality dimensions, impairment and treatment response in obsessive–compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General personality dimensions are associated with clinical severity and treatment response in individuals with depression and many anxiety disorders, but little is known about these relationships in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Individuals in the current study included 705 adults with OCD who had participated in family and genetic studies of the disorder. Participants self-completed the Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness Personality Inventory or Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness Five-Factor Inventory-3. Relationships between personality scores, and subjective impairment and OCD treatment response, were evaluated. The odds of subjective impairment increased with (unit increase in) the neuroticism score (odds ratio, OR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.01-1.04; p < 0.01) and decreased with extraversion scores (OR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.96-0.99; p < 0.01). The odds of reporting a good response to serotonin/selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01-1.04; p < 0.01) or cognitive behavioural therapy (OR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.01-1.05; p < 0.01) increased with the extraversion score. The magnitude of these relationships did not change appreciably after adjusting for other clinical features related to one or more of the personality dimensions. The findings suggest that neuroticism and extraversion are associated with subjective impairment, and that extraversion is associated with self-reported treatment response, in individuals with OCD. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".