The role of early-life family composition and parental socio-economic status as risk factors for obsessive-compulsive disorder in a Danish national cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on early-life family environment on obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) risk is limited, and sex differences have not been sufficiently studied. We investigated early-life family composition and parental socio-economic status (SES) as OCD risk factors while stratifying for sex in a sample of 1,154,067 individuals from the Danish population (7550 of whom had OCD). Data on early-life family composition (birth order, number of siblings, number of parents in household at proband age 6), parental SES at age 6 (parental income, occupation, and education level), history of parental psychiatric illness, and parental age at birth on OCD risk (i.e., an ICD-10 diagnosis of F42.x) were obtained from Danish population registers. Survival analyses using Cox regression were performed with age as the underlying time variable. Analyses were adjusted for calendar time, and differential effect by sex was tested for exposures. We found that birth order and advanced maternal age were risk factors for OCD in males, and being an only child was associated with increased OCD risk in both sexes. Early childhood SES variables including parental education, occupation, and income were associated with OCD risk, and these effects were more pronounced in females. Significant interaction effects for parental education/occupation and the presence of non-OCD psychiatric diagnoses in the proband also emerged. Our results suggest that early-life SES and family composition may be important risk factors for OCD, and heterogeneity in OCD cases in terms of psychiatric comorbidities, as well as sex differences should be carefully examined in relation to risk factors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".