Exploring the Interplay between Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder Severity: Implications for Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Traumatic events adversely affect the clinical course of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). Our study explores the correlation between prolonged interpersonal trauma and the severity of symptoms related to OCD and anxiety disorders. Materials and Methods: The study follows a cross-sectional and observational design, employing the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) to examine areas linked to interpersonal trauma, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), and the Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) to assess anxious and obsessive–compulsive symptoms, respectively. Descriptive analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: We recruited 107 OCD-diagnosed patients, categorizing them into subgroups based on the presence or absence of complex post-traumatic stress disorder (cPTSD). The ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups in the onset age of OCD (p = 0.083), psychiatric familial history (p = 0.023), HAM-A, and Y-BOCS (p < 0.0001). Logistic regression indicated a statistically significant association between the presence of cPTSD and Y-BOCS scores (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The coexistence of cPTSD in OCD exacerbates obsessive–compulsive symptoms and increases the burden of anxiety. Further advancements in this field are crucial for mitigating the impact of early trauma on the trajectory of OCD and associated anxious symptoms.
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".