MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213169945 · doi:10.1176/appi.focus.20210016

Hoarding Disorder: Development in Conceptualization, Intervention, and Evaluation

2021· article· en· W3213169945 on OpenAlexaff
Christiana Bratiotis, Jordana Muroff, Nancy Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueFOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoarding (animal behavior)Hoarding disorderIntervention (counseling)ConceptualizationPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistCognitive behavioral therapyPsychiatryCognitionMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hoarding disorder is characterized by difficulty parting with possessions because of strong urges to save the items. Difficulty discarding often includes items others consider to be of little value and results in accumulation of a large number of possessions that clutter the home. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor medications traditionally used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder are generally not efficacious for people with hoarding problems. A specialized CBT approach for hoarding has shown progress in reaching treatment goals and has been modified to be delivered in group, peer-facilitated, and virtual models. Research on hoarding remains in the early phases of development. Animal, attachment, and genetic models are expanding. Special populations, such as children, older adults, and people who do not voluntarily seek treatment need special consideration for intervention. Community-based efforts aimed at reducing public health and safety consequences of severe hoarding are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in PsychiatrySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207