MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182256144 · doi:10.82308/355

Treatment seeking for obsessive-compulsive disorder : role of ocd symptons and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses

2000· article· en· W3182256144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamie I. Mayerovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryPsychiatric diagnosisMedical diagnosisObsessive compulsivePsychologyMedicinePsychiatric comorbidityComorbiditySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Previous research has indicated that although obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is associated with immense suffering, and social and economic costs, individuals afflicted with the disorder have a very low rate of seeking help from mental health professionals. Methods. From standardized psychiatric interviews of 7214 Edmonton residents we identified 172 subjects with a lifetime diagnosis of OCD; 37% (63/172) had consulted a doctor about their symptoms. Results. Total number of symptoms (odds ratio, OR = 3.44) and severe obsessions of violence and other unpleasant thoughts (OR = 2.62) were significantly associated with treatment seeking in the multivariate analysis. Conclusion. This study was an important step in examining which specific symptoms and comorbid conditions are associated with treatment seeking. It was somewhat surprising that neither comorbid disorders nor any compulsive symptoms were related to treatment seeking behaviour. This study may be of benefit to future public education programs especially by teaching the public about 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207