What makes an obsession? A systematic‐review and meta‐analysis on the specific characteristics of intrusive cognitions in OCD in comparison with other clinical and non‐clinical populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th ed. defines obsessions in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) as frequent, persistent, intrusive, unwanted thoughts that provoke anxiety and distress and lead to attempts to neutralize them with either thoughts or actions. However, no systematic review has yet evaluated characteristics that are specific to obsessions occurring in OCD. The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the specific features of obsessions occurring in OCD by comparing them to both obsessionally and non-obsessionally-themed intrusions in non-clinical and other clinical populations. Based on a registered protocol, 832 records were found, of which 15 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 1891 participants. Obsessionally-themed intrusions that occur among those with OCD caused more distress, guilt, negative emotion and interference as compared to similarly-themed intrusions that occur within the general population. The distinction between obsessionally-themed intrusions among those with OCD as compared to those occurring in anxiety and depressive disorder primarily revolves around a higher level of persistence, pervasiveness and distress associated with their occurrence. Further, unacceptability, uncontrollability, ego-dystonicity, alienness, guilt, the form of the intrusion, association with the self and lack of any basis in reality also differentiates between obsessions and intrusions occurring in other disorders. Obsessions share many characteristics with thoughts occurring in other disorders and can be distinguished using a combination of characteristics specific to individual disorders.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".