Alexithymia, resilience and suicidal ideation among patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric illness with a considerable risk of alexithymia, and suicide may make this risk worse. This study aimed to assess alexithymia, resilience, and suicidal ideation among patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder. A cross-sectional study was established at the psychiatric outpatient clinic at Zagazig University Hospitals in addition to Abbasyia Hospital for Mental Health in Cairo City. A purposive sample of 140 obsessive–compulsive patients. Five tools were used for data collection, including the socio-demographic questionnaire, the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Resilience Scale, and the Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI). Results The study findings demonstrated that in excess of two-thirds of the studied subjects had mild obsessive–compulsive disorder, slightly more than two-thirds of them suffered from alexithymia, more than half of patients had a moderate level of resilience, and the majority of them had suicidal ideation. Patients’ obsessive–compulsive score was a statistically significant positive predictor for suicidal ideation. Conclusions A positive and significant correlation was found between patients’ obsessive–compulsive scores and both alexithymia and suicidal ideation scores. Negatively significant correlations were found between resilience and each patient’s obsessive–compulsive score, alexithymia, and suicidal ideation. Therefore, it is recommended implementing longitudinal studies to establish the causality between OCD Sufferers’ resilience, alexithymia, and ideations of suicide.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".