Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions may contribute to a deterioration in mental health; individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) may be particularly affected. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effects of the current pandemic on people diagnosed with OCD, and whether pandemics may affect the development of OCD symptoms. Methods: We conducted a systematic search using NCBI PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar on February 9, 2021. Research articles related to OCD and COVID-19 or other pandemics were attempted to be identified using pre-defined search terms. Case reports, clinical guidelines, letters, and clinical research articles including ≥100 participants were included; reviews were excluded. The systematic review adheres to PRISMA guidelines and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included clinical research articles. Results: A total of 79 articles were included in the full-text assessment. Of these, 59 were clinical research articles, two were clinical guidelines, six were case reports, and 12 were letters. The research articles examined OCD symptoms in adult patients with diagnosed OCD, the general population, pregnant women, healthcare workers, students, and young adults, children, and adolescents. Only one study on OCD in previous pandemics was identified. Conclusion: This systematic review found that people both with and without diagnosed OCD prior to the pandemic generally experienced a worsened landscape of symptoms of OCD during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the responses are heterogeneous and many factors other than the pandemic seemed to affect the development of OCD symptoms. To prevent the impairment of symptoms and the development of new cases, close monitoring of patients with OCD and education of the general public is essential. Literature is still limited; thus, multinational and cross-cultural, longitudinal studies are warranted to gain further insights on this topic.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it