A comparative study of obsessive beliefs in obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety disorder patients and a normal group.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive models of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) posit that specific kinds of dysfunctional beliefs underlie the development of this disorder. The aim of present study was to determine whether these beliefs are endorsed more strongly by OCD patients than by those with other anxiety disorders and by community samples. A battery of questionnaires, including the OBQ-44, MOCI, BDI-II, BAI, STAI, used to assess obsessive-compulsive symptoms, depression and anxiety in 39 OCD patients (OC), 46 anxious patients (AC) and 41 community controls (CC). Compared to CCs and ACs, OC patients more strongly endorsed beliefs related to importance and control of thoughts. Both OC and AC patients scored higher than CC participants did on belief domains about responsibility/threat estimation and perfectionism/certainty. Therefore, the domain that seems to be specific to OCD is a set of beliefs that revolves around the contention that it is possible and necessary to control one's thoughts. Results regarding group differences on particular items of the OBQ-44 indicated that 21 items discriminated between the OC and CC groups and 7 items discriminated between the OC and AC groups, suggesting that these items are more specific to the OC group. Additional research warranted because it is plausible that these cognitive factors relate differently to OCD phenomena across different cultures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".