A study of the <scp>Repeated Actions Diary</scp> in patients suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structured Repeated Action Diary (RAD) collects in vivo data on compulsions and their various characteristics. Certain compulsions (i.e., those ending because the patient feels certain that it is safe to stop) are then compared with uncertain compulsions. The compulsion profile in patients with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) was assessed by using the RAD. Thirty-two patients from two sources participated in the study. Before pooling the two subgroups, we checked that they did not differ significantly with regard to demographic and clinical variables. Patients reported several categories of compulsion. The most frequently reported compulsions were washing and checking. In a given person, checking compulsions (in contrast to washing compulsions) were often produced by several different obsessions. Almost all the patients reported repeating the compulsions because of a need to feel sure. There were far more "certain" compulsions than "uncertain" compulsions. The number of repetitions was significantly lower for certain compulsions than for uncertain compulsions. The person felt greater relief from guilt and responsibility and a greater decrease in discomfort at the end of a compulsive episode for certain compulsions than for uncertain compulsions. In conclusion, the need to ritualize (prompted by uncertainty, i.e., potential danger) might explain the maintenance (or posttreatment recurrence) of OCD in many patients. The need for certainty in the completion of a compulsion may be worth considering as a therapeutic tool. The development of an approach based on the need for certainty might help to improve treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".