Clinical correlates of obsessive-compulsive disorder comorbidity in patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical correlates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) comorbidity in patients with schizophrenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included fifty schizophrenia patients with an existing OCD comorbidity and 200 schizophrenia patients who did not have an OCD diagnosis for a lifetime. The participants were administered Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impressions Severity Scale (CGI-S), Scale for the Assessment of Positive and Negative Symptoms (SAPS/SANS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. RESULTS: Patients with OCD comorbidity had higher BPRS, SANS, and CGI-S scores compared to patients without OCD. In addition, patients with OCD showed worse functional impairment; however, sociodemographic variables, SAPS, CDSS, and insight scores did not show a significant difference depending on the presence of OCD. The present study also showed higher negative and depressive symptoms in patients with preexisting OCD compared to those manifesting OCD during the course of schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients with schizophrenia and OCD comorbidity showed different clinical features compared to those not showing an OCD presence for a lifetime. In this study, positive symptoms were not determinative in the differentiation of patients with and without OCD. It is important to assess OCD symptoms in patients with schizophrenia, and psychosocial therapies should be provided in patients with OCD to improve negative symptoms and functionality. Patients with preexisting OCD displayed more severe symptoms and seemed to require a different clinical approach in treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".