Is context a crucial factor in distinguishing between intrusions and obsessions in patients with obsessive‐compulsive disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Some cognitive models of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) posit that intrusions exist on a continuum with obsessions; others consider that they may be unrelated phenomena that differ in the context where they occur. We aimed to examine and compare, at two different moments, the context of the occurrence of intrusions and obsessions. METHOD: Sixty-eight patients with OCD completed an interview appraising their most upsetting obsession and intrusion. RESULTS: At their onset, the obsessions/intrusions were associated with experiencing negative emotional states and life events, and they were more likely to appear in "inappropriate" contexts. The context of the obsessions/intrusions differed the last time they were experienced. Autogenous obsessions/intrusions occurred more frequently in contexts with an indirect link. CONCLUSIONS: The context distinguishes between intrusions and obsessions, not when they emerge, but when the obsession is already established. The results support that there is a continuum or progression from intrusions to obsessions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".