The associations of obsessive–compulsive symptom dimensions and general severity with suicidal ideation in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder: The role of specific stress responses to COVID‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicidal ideation is prevalent in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD); but, during COVID-19, it may be increased. The present study aimed to examine the effects of obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptom dimensions and OCD severity on suicidal ideation by considering the role of stress responses in reaction to COVID-19 in a clinical sample of patients with OCD. In a cross-sectional study, 304 patients with OCD completed measures of OC symptom dimensions, OCD severity, general mental health (depression and anxiety), and COVID-19-related stress. Results showed that after controlling for depression, anxiety, comorbidity, and lifetime suicide attempts, the OC symptom dimensions of responsibility for harm and unacceptable obsessional thoughts as well as general severity had indirect effects on suicidal ideation through the specific stress responses to COVID-19, including traumatic stress and compulsive checking. The study shows that OCD patients with specific OC symptom dimensions and severe OCD are more likely to have suicidal ideation during the pandemic. Further, the specific stress responses to COVID-19 may be an underlying mechanism. Clinicians should carefully assess suicidal ideation in patients with OCD who experience responsibility for harm and unacceptable thoughts, particularly during the pandemic.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".