Correlation study of self-inconsistency,alexithymia and obsessions-compulsions of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the relationship among self- inconsistency, alexithymia and obsessions-compulsions of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Methods The Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale ( Y-BOCS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) and Self- consistency and Congruence Scale (SCCS) were adopted to test 45 patients with obsessive -compulsive disorder (observation group) and 45 cases normal subjects ( control group). Results ①The scores of self- consistency, inflexibility and total score of Y- BOCS in observation group were higher than those of control group (P ＜ 0. 01 ), but the score of flexibility in observation group was lower than that in control group ( P ＜0. 01 ) . ②The total score of TAS and factor Ⅰ, Ⅱ scores in observation group were significantly higher than those in control group ( P ＜ 0. 01 ) . ③The score of self-consistency, the total score of TAS and factor Ⅰ, Ⅱ scores were significantly positively correlated with the total score of Y-BOCS (P ＜ 0. 01 ) . Conclusions The patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder have significantly alexithymia and low self-consistency. Alexithymia and self- consistency were significantly correlated with obsessions-compulsions. Key words: Obsessive-compulsive disorder; Alexithymia; Self-consistency; Obsessions-compulsions
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 | 0.000 | 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".